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.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I'm not seeing the point of quitting since a mackinaw requires exhumers II and the required ice refining skills would leave the "homeless" ice miners pretty well of for re specializing in other low skill req highsec ores (see hulk on veld action). Regardless I feel you pulled the 75% out of your ass

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

There would be no demand for new ships/modules if pirates didn't blow them up. Pirates make the game interesting and create a balance in the eve universe. I would even say Pirates are needed in this game to keep the Eve economy active.

---

Originally by: Zetjur Jilnou

---

Simple solution really. Instead of removing it, see the difference between empire and 0.0 ice fields - 0.0 has higher yield ice. Simply do the same again - create a lower than normal yield ice and swap high sec to those, with low sec having it as it is now and 0.0 with the high yield.

---

Originally by: Zetjur Jilnou

---

Simple solution really. Instead of removing it, see the difference between empire and 0.0 ice fields - 0.0 has higher yield ice. Simply do the same again - create a lower than normal yield ice and swap high sec to those, with low sec having it as it is now and 0.0 with the high yield.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Edited by: Tarminic on 01/05/2008 22:37:46

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I'm not seeing the point of quitting since a mackinaw requires exhumers II and the required ice refining skills would leave the "homeless" ice miners pretty well of for re specializing in other low skill req highsec ores (see hulk on veld action). Regardless I feel you pulled the 75% out of your ass

---

I'm not saying that 75% of ice miners would quit if ice was moved to low-sec.

I'm saying that carebears - of which empire ice miners are a subset - always gravitate activities that:
1. Offer the lowest risk (Most important by far)
2. Offer the highest reward

If you remove ice from empire, 75% of those who mined ice in empire would switch to another low-risk, high-reward activity. 25%, at most, would move to low-sec, though I imagine most of them would rather move to 0.0 space instead since the risk is lower there.

That 75% would only quit if there was no other low-risk activity.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Numbers still being pulled out of your ass

---

Quote:

---

Highsec is full of other lowrisk activities your point?

---

Originally by: David Flavius

---

ok pardon the new guy but why is it safer in 0.0 space then low sec?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The most important aspect of an empire ice miner/carebear in general is low risk. Unless the risk is lowered, regardless of the reward, nothing will change.

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

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.

---

The problem is, what is your definition of "improving" low sec? And why do players have to move from hi sec in order to do it?

Quote:

---

1) remove ALL hi sec ice

---

Ah, I see what your definition of "improve" is. Easy mackinaw kills to pad your kill mails.

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

---

The effects would be, macros would stop mining ice and mine more hi sec ore. For the macros, it is a business. They're not playing for fun, so they have no emotional attachment to their equipment. It is merely an issue of cost analysis for them.

For the non-macros, they will simply switch to mining hi sec ore. Honestly, even if mercoxit were in low sec, no one would move there from hi sec just to mine it. The pirates will know where it is, will know where the miners are, and their largely defenseless mining ships will get insta-popped. Heck, we wouldn't even be able to warp into those systems.

And there lies the problem. There is nothing that will get people to go from hi-sec into low-sec... NOTHING... short of vastly reducing the risk for entering low-sec. As a pirate, that certainly isn't what you want.

If you want more targets, why don't you go into 0.0 space and look for them there?

-Grid

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Numbers still being pulled out of your ass

---

I think they're relatively accurate.

Would you agree to the fact that 75% of those in high-sec remain there due to the low risk more than the high reward? It's not a statistically accurate survey (which would be very difficult to obtain), but it's based on my experience in empire space and low-sec space, of which I have a lot.

Quote:

---

Highsec is full of other lowrisk activities your point?

---

Exactly. 75% of those mining ice would move on to other low-risk activities in high-sec.

My original statement is regarding what would happen if you removed high-sec space entirely, not high-sec ice. I wasn't suggesting that the removal of high-sec ice would result in 75% of high-sec ice miners quitting.

---

Originally by: Wendat Huron

---

OP needs to be war declared by a 10 times larger outfit.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

"Ah, I see what your definition of "improve" is. Easy mackinaw kills to pad your kill mails."

callisthenes excelsior has a 3.1 sec status and his corp doesn't have a public killboard also see Strawman

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Is accuracy based on a guess still accuracy?

Removing ice from highsec will move miners to veld but will make the asset all the more valuable since it is now only available in non concord protected zones

---

Originally by: Nicholai Stropkov

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

5 and 7

how do you know?

---

because i can see further than the end of my nose

---

Originally by: Thirzarr

---

How hard is it to grasp that quite a lot of people just dont want to pvp?

The alternative to having nothing to achieve in high-sec is NOT moving to low, its quitting the game.

And no possible "reward" will make anyone volunteer for the victim-role.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

how do you know what will make people leave highsec for the badlands are you the voice of the people? The collective unconscious of the highsec playerbase? please inform me of your scources

---

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: Jack Jombardo

---

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

---

1) ignore this ****
2) remove 99% of all wannabe lowsec Pirates
3) problem solved

---

Originally by: Enkidu Uruksen

---

CCP doesn't want more people working in low sec - over the last nine months the only changes to the situation have been to increase risk to the residents without increasing rewards.

Examples: nerfing POS defense, increasing supply-line vulnerability, introducing POS-killing rewards.

CCP's goals for low sec are the exact opposite of yours.

---

Originally by: callisthenes excelsior

---

players need to move from hi sec to populate low sec.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Pirates aren't hiding the fact that the reason they want low-sec improved is so more people will go there, giving them more opportunities to engage in combat. I also think a number of pirates are less interested in combat in the traditional sense and more interested in earning ISK/prestige through easy kills.

---

Originally by: Enkidu Uruksen

---

Originally by: Enkidu Uruksen

---

CCP doesn't want more people working in low sec - over the last nine months the only changes to the situation have been to increase risk to the residents without increasing rewards.

Examples: nerfing POS defense, increasing supply-line vulnerability, introducing POS-killing rewards.

CCP's goals for low sec are the exact opposite of yours.

---

Forgot to mention another bit of evidence: CCP made it easier to scan down mission runners... that dramatically reduced the population in Aeschee, which has a fat handful of 4/20 agents. More increased risk with no offsetting increase in reward.

---

Originally by: Jack Jombardo

---

But they ignore, that there victims have SERO fun beeing ganged all the time. Becouse of this little fact CCP could place pure-ISK-belts to lowsec and there wouldn't be more miners/missionrunners there.

Btw. More non-priates => more wannabe pirates => non-pirates leave again => more whining wannabe Pirates

It's 100% sensles to add more "reward" if the security isn't tuched in any way.
- Better defens for miner/hauler
- same modul need for PvM as for PvP (ECM etc)
- beeing allowed to kill ANY negativ secure or player with bounty without beeing concordonged
- remove insurence if concordonged!
- let me scan cloackers!!! (cloacked BS? LOL!!!)

Hell, they call them selve "Pirates" ... why aren't we allowed to assist the concord as headhunters? We should gain hugh standings with concord by killing these bastards!

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Enkidu Uruksen

---

CCP doesn't want more people working in low sec - ... increase risk to the residents without increasing rewards.

Examples: nerfing POS defense, increasing supply-line vulnerability, introducing POS-killing rewards.
...
Forgot to mention another bit of evidence: CCP made it easier to scan down mission runners... that dramatically reduced the population in Aeschee, which has a fat handful of 4/20 agents. More increased risk with no offsetting increase in reward.

---

Some times you'll find things by reading inbetween the lines in this case you found a bunch of line breaks that you are filling in with your brilliant theory.

Your first example: POS changes = We don't want you in lowsec because your pos can now die? POS's were always killable I'm not seeing what you are getting at.

Your Second example: The Scanner changes whilst making things incredibly easy was needed due to the fact that probes scanned 2 dimensionally leaving unprobable zones due to the positioning of dead space pockets on the z axis. The change affected all ships not just mission runners

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Edited by: Tarminic on 01/05/2008 23:14:36

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

"Ah, I see what your definition of "improve" is. Easy mackinaw kills to pad your kill mails."

callisthenes excelsior has a 3.1 sec status and his corp doesn't have a public killboard also see Strawman

---

I don't think that's a strawman, just a poor assumption.

Pirates aren't hiding the fact that the reason they want low-sec improved is so more people will go there, giving them more opportunities to engage in combat. I also think a number of pirates are less interested in combat in the traditional sense and more interested in earning ISK/prestige through easy kills.

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Is accuracy based on a guess still accuracy?

Removing ice from highsec will move miners to veld but will make the asset all the more valuable since it is now only available in non concord protected zones

---

Firstly:
I've spent a lot of time in a high-sec corp, and I assume that the behavior I witnessed is relatively normal for a high-sec industrial corp, which matches the carebear definition I've been using. Their primary motivation for playing was setting goals for themselves and the corporation and accomplishing them. Most of those goals involved accumulating wealth and industrial power, and those goals would be hindered by the high-risk of low-sec.

Also:
CCP has increased the rewards for non-combat low-sec activities specifically designed to appeal to the industry-minded players (carebears). These improvements have had little success in drawing carebears to low-security space. Therefore I believe that low risk and not high reward is the most important factor for carebears.

Therefore the reward for low-sec is irrelevant to high-sec players. If it became valuable enough to make up for the risks (which would be very high), players from 0.0 would utilize them first because they are less risk-adverse.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

by industrial themed additions to lowsec do you mean exploration?

---

Originally by: Enkidu Uruksen

---

What's your point? Are you saying that I shouldn't assume CCP knew what the result of these changes would be? Do you think they don't have the risk/reward discussion when they introduce new features?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

You don't NEED to do lvl 5 missions and lvl 4 Q20 missions when there are readily available alternatives that average only 200k/hr less than the payout of the best highsec missions. The t2 galaxy needs Ice, capship blobbing needs ice, blueprint researching needs ice

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

...
CCP has increased the rewards for non-combat low-sec activities specifically designed to appeal to the industry-minded players (carebears). These improvements have had little success in drawing carebears to low-security space. Therefore I believe that low risk and not high reward is the most important factor for carebears.

Therefore the reward for low-sec is irrelevant to high-sec players. If it became valuable enough to make up for the risks (which would be very high), players from 0.0 would utilize them first because they are less risk-adverse.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Edited by: Tarminic on 02/05/2008 00:06:05

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

by industrial themed additions to lowsec do you mean exploration?

---

I should have said industrial/carebear.

Additions to low-sec include, but are not limited to:
1. Exploration content much better than available in high-sec
2. Synthetic booster production
3. Level 5 missions
4. Higher-quality level 4 mission agents

2 and 3 are completely exclusive to low-sec with no noticeable effects.

And when people complain about why they suck, the argument is always that they're not rewarding enough for the risk. If you improve the reward to greater than what is in 0.0, all that would happen is that pilots from 0.0 would take them over, not high-sec players.

---

Originally by: Rawne Karrde

---

Tarminic has hit the nail on the proverbial head. Its not more reward but less risk that will get "carebears" into low sec.

CCP added moon mining to low sec, didn't work.
CCP added zydrine to low sec ores, didn't work.
CCP added lvl 5 mission to low sec, didn't work.

---

Originally by: Shintai

---

One thing you dont want in EvE is highsec or 0.0 to be completely independent of one another.

---

Originally by: Shadow Joy

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

...
CCP has increased the rewards for non-combat low-sec activities specifically designed to appeal to the industry-minded players (carebears). These improvements have had little success in drawing carebears to low-security space. Therefore I believe that low risk and not high reward is the most important factor for carebears.

Therefore the reward for low-sec is irrelevant to high-sec players. If it became valuable enough to make up for the risks (which would be very high), players from 0.0 would utilize them first because they are less risk-adverse.

---

I disagree with this assessment. I think the problem is that perceived risk versus the perceived reward is too small.

As an example, say that you have a cruiser that costs 6 million. You know there is an opportunity for a quick 3 million ISK profit in low sec. Would you take that gamble if you thought you would be blown up 60% of the time you tried for the prize?

Now if that potential profit was 12 million, I believe most people would at least be willing to take an occasional shot.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

And if 0.0 pilots come up to reap lowsec rewards the end goal of more people in lowsec is met

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

And if 0.0 pilots come up to reap lowsec rewards the end goal of more people in lowsec is met

---

But currently half of EVE players never set foot outside of high sec space (according to the 2nd economic report). Encouraging 0.0 players, who are already a fairly small minority, to move to low-sec doesn't solve the problem.

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

but this is a thread about moving ice from highsec

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Originally by: Sim'a Nuk

---

This thread is about ganking Mackinaws.

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

but this is a thread about moving ice from highsec

---

And I'm arguing that this will have a very small effect in accomplishing the goal of encouraging those in high-sec to base their operations out of low-sec. Isn't that the entire point of moving ice from highsec?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Straw man

---

Originally by: Sim'a Nuk

---

Edited by: Sim''a Nuk on 02/05/2008 01:54:57

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Straw man

---

I am a woman.

And the ice will be mined in 0.0

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Sim'a Nuk

---

Edited by: Sim''a Nuk on 02/05/2008 01:54:57

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Straw man

---

I am a woman.

And the ice will be mined in 0.0

---

there are no women on the internet

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

3. Make it easier for anti-pirates to protect carebears from ganking

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

but this is a thread about moving ice from highsec

---

And I'm arguing that this will have a very small effect in accomplishing the goal of encouraging those in high-sec to base their operations out of low-sec. Isn't that the entire point of moving ice from highsec?

---

Moving ice from highsec would reduce afk mining potential of the required resource and increase its value since the bots and solo players will move to the low end ores. Since Ice is required to run pos's and operate jump drives some one will have to mine it as opposed to ignore it (see lvl5 missions and booster production) adding luxuries to lowsec won't populate lowsec moving necessities to lowsec will populate lowsec

---

Quote:

---

There would be no demand for new ships/modules if pirates didn't blow them up. Pirates make the game interesting and create a balance in the eve universe. I would even say Pirates are needed in this game to keep the Eve economy active.

---

Quote:

---

But if there was more money to be made in the lawless parts of town the businessmen would flock there.

---

Quote:

---

You can't really draw a comparison with Eve and real life with this argument.

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Can someone just explain WHY this is an actual "problem"?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why people who play in hi-sec need to play in lo-sec.

-Grid

---

Originally by: Rawne Karrde

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

but this is a thread about moving ice from highsec

---

And I'm arguing that this will have a very small effect in accomplishing the goal of encouraging those in high-sec to base their operations out of low-sec. Isn't that the entire point of moving ice from highsec?

---

Moving ice from highsec would reduce afk mining potential of the required resource and increase its value since the bots and solo players will move to the low end ores. Since Ice is required to run pos's and operate jump drives some one will have to mine it as opposed to ignore it (see lvl5 missions and booster production) adding luxuries to lowsec won't populate lowsec moving necessities to lowsec will populate lowsec

---

Any corp that could sustain an ice mining operation in low sec would have the ability to just go to 0.0 and mine better ice there instead. less risk more profit. Hence once again low sec does not get more populated.

---

Originally by: Dragons Talon

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Can someone just explain WHY this is an actual "problem"?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why people who play in hi-sec need to play in lo-sec.

-Grid

---

There are none, unless you (A) like getting podded, or (B) like pretending to be a pirate.

---

Originally by: Dragons Talon

---

Quote:

---

There would be no demand for new ships/modules if pirates didn't blow them up. Pirates make the game interesting and create a balance in the eve universe. I would even say Pirates are needed in this game to keep the Eve economy active.

---

0.0 wars and new players will always create a demand for new ships/mods.

Quote:

---

But if there was more money to be made in the lawless parts of town the businessmen would flock there.

---

Nope...its easier to get a low sec pos vrs a high sec, but no one wants the hassle of trying to time the pirates gate camps to refuel it.

Quote:

---

You can't really draw a comparison with Eve and real life with this argument.

---

Why not?... you will never see Bill gates in down town seattle after dark by himself.

To the OP's points:
1: will do nothing to the macros
2: will not get anyone into low sec to mine it
3: as its been stated, the risk of low sec is HIGHER than going from high sec right to 0.0, and the rewards are far higher in 0.0. Until low sec is as safe as being in 0.0 or safer, not many are going to bother with it, outside of pirates.

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

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.

---

But if there was more money to be made in the lawless parts of town the businessmen would flock there.

You can't really draw a comparison with Eve and real life with this argument.

---

Quote:

---

Except that there is even more money to be made moving "business" to the third world(0 sec), where there are no regulations and they can get away with anything they want.

---

Originally by: Galen Brustar

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

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.

---

But if there was more money to be made in the lawless parts of town the businessmen would flock there.

You can't really draw a comparison with Eve and real life with this argument.

---

Except that there is even more money to be made moving "business" to the third world(0 sec), where there are no regulations and they can get away with anything they want.

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

Quote:

---

Except that there is even more money to be made moving "business" to the third world(0 sec), where there are no regulations and they can get away with anything they want.

---

True 0.0 offers many opportunities to make money, but you're creating an anology between 0.0 and third world countries is pure asinine. Would you move to Vietnam because of the numerous opportunities to make money there or stay in High-sec USA?

---

Originally by: Fifth Horseman

---

Can't CCP just introduce some "rats", that look like player accounts, jump them into the gate camps in t1 fitted drakes. Very low AI required for a drake. Fires all missiles, dies.

Then swears in local just before it gets pod killed.


The Counterstrike camper gets his adrenaline "rush", something more than the shuttles and empty haulers he has to pop all night long, and we just get less of this whiney "I killed lowsec, YOU fix it" crap.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

You are a constructive poster and quite possibly the most badass person on the internet naming one of your characters after something dangerous and exciting my hats off to you.

---

Originally by: Fifth Horseman

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

You are a constructive poster and quite possibly the most badass person on the internet naming one of your characters after something dangerous and exciting my hats off to you.

---

It's not about making a name for myself, it's to get a solution that benefits everybody.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Your solution is giving PvE to the PvP crowd and has nothing to do with reasons saying why ice should or shouldn't be in highesc

---

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

---

If you want people to move to low-sec that means lowering the RISK. As much as you pirates might not like it, this leaves us with limited options:

1. Make it easier for carebears to avoid being ganked
2. Make it harder for pirates to gank carebears
3. Make it easier for anti-pirates to protect carebears from ganking

Nothing else will have a significant impact on low-sec population.

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Can someone just explain WHY this is an actual "problem"?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why people who play in hi-sec need to play in lo-sec.

-Grid

---

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

---

I think that in a modified form, the idea in the OP might be interesting. What if the composition of starbase fuel were changed to include at least 1 type of NPC goods available only in low sec? Expanding on this idea, what if there was a medium-value low sec-only equivalent of Morphite that was vital for the production of popular items?

Also, I'd suggest allowing trade in contraband in low sec.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

I think someone missed the repeated comments from the Devs that they were not going to "force" anyone into LowSec....

I also think that a few players really don't understand the economic impact of heavily restricting POS fuel supplies Moving Ice to LowSec means it won't be mined in near enough supply; as "proof" I will just point that ice prices have DOUBLED since the Jihadswarm started. Just think what happens when all the ice in the universe is available only in a dozen systems in LowSec. I doubt the good Dr. and his spreadsheets is going to think its a good idea



As for the "What about all the POSs I already see there" crowd, well there isn't a lot of production coming out of them as can be evidenced by the moon material market.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Ice prices have doubled, you say?!

GOD BLESS YOU GOONS!

---

Originally by: New Hampshire

---

The entire reason many players stick to high sec is because there's so many ways to die in low sec that it's to a degree a matter of luck. Never mind the bubbles in 0.0, the heavy interdictors in low sec is what I'm talking about. You want to get from point A to point B as a solo player? If you run into a pirate gang with one of those things, there's little if anything you can do. That's a tough thing to take, and in my view a MAJOR balance issue.

I don't care what you put in low sec, as long as getting ganked there is assured from nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then peope will stay away from it. Start taking stuff out of high sec, and you WONT'T have the carebears running into low sec - you'll have them leaving the game.

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

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.

---

There would be no demand for new ships/modules if pirates didn't blow them up. Pirates make the game interesting and create a balance in the eve universe. I would even say Pirates are needed in this game to keep the Eve economy active.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Rachael Ray

---

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.

---

There would be no demand for new ships/modules if pirates didn't blow them up. Pirates make the game interesting and create a balance in the eve universe. I would even say Pirates are needed in this game to keep the Eve economy active.

---

To cite good Marcus : Prove that.

How much ships are destroyed by pirates, how much by 0.0 combat, how much by errors in missions and how much by suicide gankers?

I suspect that you will find that pirates are at the 3 position from most ship destroyed to least, not at the first position.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Dragons Talon

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Can someone just explain WHY this is an actual "problem"?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why people who play in hi-sec need to play in lo-sec.

-Grid

---

There are none, unless you (A) like getting podded, or (B) like pretending to be a pirate.

---

There is no reason because you have everything you need to survive in highsec

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

several posts

---

Originally by: Shadow Joy

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

...
CCP has increased the rewards for non-combat low-sec activities specifically designed to appeal to the industry-minded players (carebears). These improvements have had little success in drawing carebears to low-security space. Therefore I believe that low risk and not high reward is the most important factor for carebears.

Therefore the reward for low-sec is irrelevant to high-sec players. If it became valuable enough to make up for the risks (which would be very high), players from 0.0 would utilize them first because they are less risk-adverse.

---

I disagree with this assessment. I think the problem is that perceived risk versus the perceived reward is too small.

As an example, say that you have a cruiser that costs 6 million. You know there is an opportunity for a quick 3 million ISK profit in low sec. Would you take that gamble if you thought you would be blown up 60% of the time you tried for the prize?

Now if that potential profit was 12 million, I believe most people would at least be willing to take an occasional shot.

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Give me just one compelling reason why you feel that I should be compelled or required to spend time in lo sec?

-Grid

---

Originally by: Silvana Kor'ah

---

The problem i see with ICE fields are the macro miners. Just look at the caldari high sec ice fields. 20 to 40 Hulks and Makinaws in a single belt. All in NPC corp and with soundfull names like "mike2508", "river6", "gala54" and so on. No haulers, just a going and coming every few minutes ...

Something has to be done, but i doubt that low sec is the ultimate solution.

---

Originally by: Roy Batty68

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Give me just one compelling reason why you feel that I should be compelled or required to spend time in lo sec?

-Grid

---

I know you were addressing someone else, but...

You should feel compelled to go to lowsec by the allure of better isk making opportunities. Same goes for 0.0. There should be an obvious scale of "where to go to get rich" as a theme that is proportional to the amount of risk you face.

---

Originally by: Una D

---

That is easy. Force players out of the NPC corps. Just make it so they can't do anything useful in them (no using barges, no criminal acts, no missions above L2, no going to 0.0). That will force the farmers in to player created corps. Than you just make the timer to jump corporation 48+ hours and war decc them. Players get PvP, police the macros and everybody is happy (except for the fact that prices would go up quite a bit).

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

but this is a thread about moving ice from highsec

---

And I'm arguing that this will have a very small effect in accomplishing the goal of encouraging those in high-sec to base their operations out of low-sec. Isn't that the entire point of moving ice from highsec?

---

Moving ice from highsec would reduce afk mining potential of the required resource and increase its value since the bots and solo players will move to the low end ores. Since Ice is required to run pos's and operate jump drives some one will have to mine it as opposed to ignore it (see lvl5 missions and booster production) adding luxuries to lowsec won't populate lowsec moving necessities to lowsec will populate lowsec

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

See, here is one of the reasons these arguements always go wrong.

MANY of us don't really care about making more ISK; just because we can make 30% more doing the same activities somewhere else is NOT inventive to move. We play for what we perceive is fun, not to amass great wealth; ISK for the sake of ISK doesn't interest me or I would be a lot more aggressive running my missions

What ISN'T fun is trying to do your daily activities while constantly watching over your shoulder and scanning everyone that comes through local. Its fun occasionally, but no way I would ever consider mining and doing that.

So again, what incentive do I have to even consider LowSec for a home? If I had to go there to get Ice to fuel the POS I would just shut it down instead as it really isn't worth the effort and the return isn't worth the risk....

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Una D

---

That is easy. Force players out of the NPC corps. Just make it so they can't do anything useful in them (no using barges, no criminal acts, no missions above L2, no going to 0.0). That will force the farmers in to player created corps. Than you just make the timer to jump corporation 48+ hours and war decc them. Players get PvP, police the macros and everybody is happy (except for the fact that prices would go up quite a bit).

---

And you just alienated 37% of your experienced and ACTIVE players. If even 1/2 of those quit CCP's wallet would be hit considerably.

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

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

---

1. Bad idea. This will not cause them to move to low sec. Nerfing areas seldom works. Removing gameplay elements only angers people and causes them to leave games.
2. This actually is a good idea and might attract some into low sec. By providing a higher value item you attract them there.

The problem of 0.0/low/hi populations is far more dynamic than you think.

Removing or nerfing hi sec will not ever move more people to low sec or 0.0, at best it'll have no result at worst folks will leave EVE.

Low sec needs the ore/ice available made more valuable while not taking anything from hi sec. At the same time missions in low sec need to have a danger pay compponent where they pay more money than the same mission in Hi Sec. (For example Gone Berserk is normally around 350k pay and 350k bonus. Leave it that for high sec and boost by 50% for low sec).

0.0 requires more than just coding changes it requires a change in the attitudes of players. If you want more people there you have to stop shooting them as they try to get there. 0.0's greatest problem is the lack of infrastructure to support even a moderate sized population while at the same time the predominately NBSI policy of almost every 0.0 alliance (there are a couple of exceptions but not many).

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

1. Prove it

---

Quote:

---

2. But not high enough of a value that requires you to be playing the game to mine as opposed to running a bot

---

Quote:

---

3.how do you know?

---

Quote:

---

4.Making lowsec/0.0 ores more valuable will not ever match the afk isk and convinience of running a bot.

---

Quote:

---

5. Really because the first few pages of this thread say that if you can mine in lowsec you can mine in 0.0 no problem are you saying there are people that will kill you in 0.0!?

---

Originally by: Una D

---

You meant the elite PvPers that whine about lack of PvP but have alts in NPC corps to protect them from war deccs? Ah yes they would be ****ed but I figured it balances out the threads whine for more easy targets. :)

---

Originally by: Drizit

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

If you want people to move to low-sec that means lowering the RISK. As much as you pirates might not like it, this leaves us with limited options:

1. Make it easier for carebears to avoid being ganked
2. Make it harder for pirates to gank carebears
3. Make it easier for anti-pirates to protect carebears from ganking

Nothing else will have a significant impact on low-sec population.

---

I have to agree with you. Lowsec is *supposed* to be a halfway move between highsec and 0.0 and the rewards are not nearly as good as 0.0 to reflect this. However, the risks are far greater in lowsec than in most 0.0 areas which means the risk/reward ratio is way out of balance. This is one of the primary reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for lowsec.

To the OP:
Moving highsec ice to lowsec will not cause players to move there, it just means less resources in highsec and more empty roid belts. Eventually, newer players will quit due to lack of isk to buy skillbooks and ships etc for their characters. If they are forced into lowsec and find that the rewards do not cover the loss of ships and stuff, they will quit even faster.

Some may prefer less players but since this is CCP's income, the patches, new shinies and server upgrades rely on this income to allow us to play a better game.

Instead of trying to find ways to FORCE people into lowsec, why not try to find ways of limiting the risk to entice them to go there willingly? Make it possible to actually earn an income in lowsec rather than losing isk faster than you can make it and it becomes a viable place to live.

It's time CCP understood that, although this is a MMO, there are still solo players. Those who prefer not to rely on others to keep them safe as there are more cowards in this game than there are real players. It wouldn't be the first time I have teamed up only to find my team mates bailed when it got too hot, leaving me to face a lowsec gate camp alone. I lost a ship and pod as well on one occasion but in highsec, I can't even pop and pod my teammates to say thankyou to them for it. Although I am in a corp and alliance, I will often go it alone because my trust in others has been severely crushed.

---

Originally by: Roy Batty68

---

Besides, I already said I wasn't supporting the ice suggestion. I was simply addressing the "why should I feel compelled" question.

---

Originally by: Jack Jombardo

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

The problem is that there are too many people in high-sec and not enough people in low-sec.

---

Can someone just explain WHY this is an actual "problem"?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why people who play in hi-sec need to play in lo-sec.

-Grid

---

You have still yet to explain what a "real" pirate is
There isn't any problem except all these wannabe Pirates have no sheeps they can farm ... erm, Victims they can gang ... erm, get no good fights .... args, sorry, they don't like good fights, just sheeps

---

Originally by: Gridwalker

---

You're not answering my question. All you're doing is repeating WHY I _CAN_ stay in hi sec. Tell me why YOU _WANT_ ME in lo sec? Give me just one compelling reason why you feel that I should be compelled or required to spend time in lo sec?

-Grid

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

New Players will not quit because they can't mine ice This is a graph

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I don't want you just the ice

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

several posts

---

Marcus, you know exactly how untankable is a mining barge or even an exumer against a player driven ship.

A pirate can warp in a belt at 100 km, kill the target and warp away before the defenders can engage him effectively (i.e. scrambling and webbing him) and before the barge warp away, especially if the target is ice mining, where stopping the cycle mean losing all the work and the specialized ship is paper thin.

In low sec a competent and large defending force can get revenge but can't defend a miner.

In 0.0 a competent force will be guarding the gates and can protect the ice miner.

So ice mining in low sec is rarely done, and only in those few system that can be secured like 0.0 systems. Removing ice belts from high sec would not move the ice miners in low sec, those interested in getting isk ice mining will enter 0.0 alliances were they can be protected and do their trade there. The others will change activity.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

How often do you find sniper fit ships taking out barges?

with the current way local works you would know well before the offending party even loaded grid barges would be well in warp

---

Originally by: caladron prime

---

I am relatively new to non-empire life, having made the move to 0.0 for many of my efforts. The only time I spend in low-sec, is the time it takes to jump from there to 0.0 when flying in or cyno-ing, and none when clone jumping.

This thread is a rant for more fodder for low-sec grammar school bullies. The reason why 0.0 is safer is because it is player-policed. Alliances and corps, regardless of affiliation, protect and govern their space effectively and ruthlessly. In low-sec, pirates have the best of both worlds-choke points for a target rich environment, and freedom from fear of reprisal.

You could put a 99% off Gold plated Titan sale in low sec, and I am not going.

Moving ice to low sec just sets another bear trap for the pirates.

I always thought that piracy was activity with disregard for the rules and laws. Why, then, do pirates constantly want to have the rules changed to endorse and buff piracy? Pirate-life us SUPPOSED to be a tough, high risk, unpredictable reward activity, and the 'good' pirates that I have run into are in it for the thrill and the lifestyle, not for the reward. This type of suggestion would ony serve to help out the gank-rates, and I would hope that true pirates would reject this kind of idea as an insult to their way of life.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Most people take an occasional shot to low sec, what the OP, most pirates and other assorted people want is that they become permanent residents and that is what most high sec dwellers don't want.

More that the "risk" it is the need to be constantly on alert. I game to relax and that include going to low sec if I am of the right humor and want to risk some combat or explore for better rewards, ecc., what I am not interested in is to have to look behind my back every 30 seconds, check the bio of every player entering system, scanning for probes, ecc. when I am not of the right humor to do that.

So I take a occasional shot to low sec but will not live there. And for sure will not mine ice there.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I'm not sure any one considers mining ice fun or soothing of course that is just an assumption

---

Originally by: Thornorn

---

All I read out of this post is

force force force players to low sec.

what wrong..you running out of targets out there ???

---

Originally by: Abrazzar

---

Lets remove all game content from highsec. That way people will have to move to lowsec or 0.0 in order to play the game. Those areas will thrive with new players while highsec will become deserted.

oh, wait.

What new players?

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

And you just alienated 37% of your experienced and ACTIVE players. If even 1/2 of those quit CCP's wallet would be hit considerably.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

No, it will maybe populate 0.0 where mining ice is more secure.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Long quote

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

How often do you find sniper fit ships taking out barges?

with the current way local works you would know well before the offending party even loaded grid barges would be well in warp

---

How do you mine ice when you dock everytime someone enters local?

With a base of 10 minutes cycle time you might as well just stay docked because unlike mining for normal Ore, if you abort in the middle you don't get a partial cycle; you get nothing.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I'm not sure any one considers mining ice fun or soothing of course that is just an assumption

---

Like many other assumptions people are making in this thread and spouting as proof, your assumptions are wrong. After a long, annoying day the thrum of mining lasers can actually be soothing.

If your machine can run with its sound on, of course

---

Originally by: Inertial

---

I think this is just the thing low-sec needs.

Something VITAL to the eve economy. It may not drive the carebears out of high-sec, but it will allow organized corps to make a ****load of money, and bring new blood into low-sec.

---

Originally by: Victor Forge

---

Originally by: Inertial

---

I think this is just the thing low-sec needs.

Something VITAL to the eve economy. It may not drive the carebears out of high-sec, but it will allow organized corps to make a ****load of money, and bring new blood into low-sec.

---

By fresh blood you mean ofc 0.0 players? They are already making serious money since the risk / reward are balanced in 0.0.

You can¦t mine Moons in High-sec either. Remove Ice from High-sec will have the same effect as Moon-materials already have. The only thing that will change with removing Ice from High-sec is some inflation on things that need Ice-material.

Players aren¦t leaving High-sec to mining Moons of the same reason they will not mine Ice if it gets low-sec only. There are other risk-free ways to earn Isks.

Now prove me wrong!

---

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: Marcus TheMartin

---

1. Prove it
2. But not high enough of a value that requires you to be playing the game to mine as opposed to running a bot
3.how do you know?
4.Making lowsec/0.0 ores more valuable will not ever match the afk isk and convinience of running a bot.
5. Really because the first few pages of this thread say that if you can mine in lowsec you can mine in 0.0 no problem are you saying there are people that will kill you in 0.0!?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

So the moons that keep blowing me up don't exist right?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

several posts

---

Marcus, you know exactly how untankable is a mining barge or even an exumer against a player driven ship.

A pirate can warp in a belt at 100 km, kill the target and warp away before the defenders can engage him effectively (i.e. scrambling and webbing him) and before the barge warp away, especially if the target is ice mining, where stopping the cycle mean losing all the work and the specialized ship is paper thin.

In low sec a competent and large defending force can get revenge but can't defend a miner.

In 0.0 a competent force will be guarding the gates and can protect the ice miner.

So ice mining in low sec is rarely done, and only in those few system that can be secured like 0.0 systems. Removing ice belts from high sec would not move the ice miners in low sec, those interested in getting isk ice mining will enter 0.0 alliances were they can be protected and do their trade there. The others will change activity.

---

How often do you find sniper fit ships taking out barges?

with the current way local works you would know well before the offending party even loaded grid barges would be well in warp

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

No, it will maybe populate 0.0 where mining ice is more secure.

---

It will maybe?

do you know what it will do or are you just guessing?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 01/05/2008 21:59:54

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.

---

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: 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

---

5 and 7

how do you know?

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

And then there are CCP's Devs specifically stating they aren't going to force anyone out of HighSec, meaning the whole conversation is mute....

---

7. Provide a link to the quote or you are just typing.

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so. I think we've been saying that the whole time.

---

Quote:

---

And both playstyles are valid and needed, not everyone wants or should get out in low sec space.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Thornorn

---

All I read out of this post is

force force force players to low sec.

what wrong..you running out of targets out there ???

---

thanks for your constructive post

---

Originally by: El'Niaga

---

Obviously you're a bit obtuse.

1. It has been proven time and time again in games. Perhaps the most infamous example would be Star Wars Galaxies. On November 15th, 2005 Sony Online Entertainment did the third major revamp of SWG. This revamp took the game in a completely different direction trying to force the player base to play in the style the chief developer at the time wanted. Because of that they lost 70% of their subscriber base in 90 days.

2. I don't run bots, never have never will. Don't see the point in it. However if you want to stop the macroers there is a way to do it but it is a way no one's been willing to embrace. You have to eliminate paying for the game with isk. That removes the need for such an industry.

3. Maybe because I'm apparently more observant than you are about human behavior.

4. Possibly not but that's not the issue. The issue is an attempt to get more players to low sec and 0.0. The bots are not ever going to go into unsafe territory. If you move something they'll just switch to something else. You have to rob them of the reason for botting in the first place, the only way to do that is remove the isk for gtcs.

5. Yes you can generally mine in 0.0 if you can in low sec. There is one major problem in 0.0 though. There are not sufficient stations/outposts to use as bases. This makes it very difficult for the area to support even a moderate population, there simply isn't the industrial infrastructure there to support a larger population. Such could be built and built more quickly if most of the 0.0 alliances would abandon the NBSI and adopt a NRDS policy. This would allow more miners and industrials to be able to flourish in 0.0 providing the goods and services needed to supply the combat PVP crowd.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

I would say "As often as they can". Currently they have no target so no interest in fitting sniper ships. As soon as the targets become available they will become common.

As already pointed mining ice and docking every 5 minutes mean 0 ice mined. There is no "partial cycle" for ice.

Evidently you find that playing the idiot is very fun, but try to reply like you had an active brain and some honesty.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

No, it will maybe populate 0.0 where mining ice is more secure.

---

It will maybe?

do you know what it will do or are you just guessing?

---

Based on my experience, where my friend carebears and me are mining in 0.0 but not in low sec, I will say that I know.

---

Originally by: Halkin

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 01/05/2008 21:59:54

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.

---

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: 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

---

5 and 7

how do you know?

---

problem is you both have opinions, tarminics is based on observation and reasoning whereas yours is is based on i r leet pvp macho want more targets.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Edited by: Anaalys Fluuterby on 03/05/2008 23:54:27

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

And then there are CCP's Devs specifically stating they aren't going to force anyone out of HighSec, meaning the whole conversation is mute....

---

7. Provide a link to the quote or you are just typing.

---

Took me a bit, stupid forum search function

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Not it isn't, people should be encouraged to get out in low sec space, but never forced to do so. I think we've been saying that the whole time.

---

About 2/3 down this thread:
Link to Wrangler's comment

NOW can we say this point is mute?

He also said things like:

Quote:

---

And both playstyles are valid and needed, not everyone wants or should get out in low sec space.

---

in the same thread.....

---

Originally by: Sigmatropic Shift

---

The question that should be getting asked isn't "Is the risk vs. reward not good enough," because we know very well the answer. The question should be "Why is the risk so high," or in other words, "Why is it so easy for pirates to be effective in low-sec?"

The main reason for this is that it is virtually impossible for a mining barge or the equivalent to retreat from pirate attack. The current warp mechanics allow for pirates to be virtually on top of a target within the span of only a few seconds, and after that has happened there is no way for the target to retreat. This means that the complexity of defending against pirate attack is significantly higher than the complexity of attacking a miner, and that should be changed.

Sadly, I'm not entirely sure how one might go about this. A field that stops people from warping within one to two hundred km of the target could go a long way towards providing miners enough time to react, or for the pirates to be intercepted before they manage to kill the barges/transports. Increasing miner and transport tank could also help quite a bit.

Perhaps the best way to accomplish this would be to allow for some sort of UI modification to make anti-pirate activities easier. I think the addition of a 'distress signal' to all ships that could be warped to by anyone in the sector could go a long way towards this. If someone was under attack in a situation they knew they could not win in, using the signal would alert those who want to run anti-pirate operations as well as other pirates in the sector. The resulting combat would dramatically increase the risk for the pirates, seeing as anyone in the sector would know that there were targets in this area. Obviously, this ability could be used to set-up ambushes and the like, but at least those warping to the signal would be combat-ready.

In the end, the only way to move people to low-sec is to decrease the risk without eliminating pirates. I seriously doubt that my suggestion above would be effective as it is, but even then it still at least addresses the issue at hand in a way that makes things more interesting for all involved, as opposed to making sweeping economic changes.

---

Originally by: Jack Jombardo

---

Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/05/2008 01:15:09

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Thornorn

---

All I read out of this post is

force force force players to low sec.

what wrong..you running out of targets out there ???

---

thanks for your constructive post

---

Oh it is constructive as he excactly hit the point.
Why do you try to FORCE players out there? To gang them! There is absolut NO other reason for it.

How would you feel if the "garebears" FORCE you to go to highsec? Hell, someone FORCES you to play a game a way you don't like to - you would INSTANTLY cry like a baby and cancel your subscribtion.

But sorry for you. Even if you remove all but level 1 q -20 agentes from highsec most highsecer would NEVER AT ANY CASE go to lowsec but move to 0.0 instead wich is much saver then lowsec! The main problem of lowsec is it's 100% favor towards gangers, idiots and griffers. THIS must be changed to make it more atractive. Nothink else.


PS: you missed one very important point: IF you realy remove most belts, good agentes and any OK ways to earn money from highsec ... Ore/Module prise will rise dramatical and YOU (wannabe pirate ganger) must pay much MUCH more for your imba gang boot ... and then YOU will be back here and whine "buha, ships are way to expensive to PvP with"

---

Originally by: Cagot

---

I don't like the idea of moving high-sec ice to low-sec - it would make POS operations even more expensive, and the economy doesn't need that.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Cagot

---

I don't like the idea of moving high-sec ice to low-sec - it would make POS operations even more expensive, and the economy doesn't need that.

---

Yeah paying anything but rock bottom prices for ships must be rough how dare free markets not yield differentiating profits

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Moving Ice to lowsec is not forcing anyone into lowsec you still have the choice to jump into the system

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I go to highsec all the time its a strange land let me tell you. Not strange enough to cancel my account though.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

How do you know? If they are idiots how come they are able to blow you up seems like they know what they are doing. Once again how do you know what must be done the only basis you have to go on is the luxury additions to lowsec being considered unattractive where as there has never been any attempt at moving a required asset from highsec.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Will you please tell me what a real pirate is you keep calling every one wannabes and I'm sure they would love to meet your expectations. How do you know what I am going to post? This is a thread about moving ice not moving all ores and agents out of highsec

---

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

No ice in high sec.

Price of ice rises.
Ice mining becomes more profitable than regular mining.
People want money.
People go to some of the many low sec systems that would have ice.

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

I would say "As often as they can". Currently they have no target so no interest in fitting sniper ships. As soon as the targets become available they will become common.

As already pointed mining ice and docking every 5 minutes mean 0 ice mined. There is no "partial cycle" for ice.

Evidently you find that playing the idiot is very fun, but try to reply like you had an active brain and some honesty.

---

The opportunities for snipers in a bacon enriched aligned barge world are few and far in between could it happen yes is it likely? I don't have the odds in front of me but I'm going to say no.

Once again mining in high traffic systems will lead to 0 ice were as mining in secluded areas off the beaten path will be that much more profitable. Don't assume that all of lowsec is a death zone but trying to mine ice in hysera may be a bad idea

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Who are you to say what I want? I don't even live in lowsec I like my sec status The argument isn't who is right but it is how do you know X will happen. No one actually knows is the point.

---

Originally by: Jacob Mei

---

Good idea with making items exclusive in low sec, bad idea to use ice. Why?

Alliances in 0.0 would be able to import the fuel to high sec and given that 0.0 is where the most profit is to be had it wont be worth the threat to mine in low sec.

What Low sec needs are exclusive features to drive people to go there. IE Ore with minerals that you can only find in low sec, not in high sec or 0.0 along with rewards of decent value that can only be found in low sec.

---

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

No ice in high sec.

Price of ice rises.
Ice mining becomes more profitable than regular mining.
People want money.
People go to some of the many low sec systems that would have ice.

---

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Cagot

---

I don't like the idea of moving high-sec ice to low-sec - it would make POS operations even more expensive, and the economy doesn't need that.

---

Yeah paying anything but rock bottom prices for ships must be rough how dare free markets not yield differentiating profits

---

Explain how artificial price increases are part of a "free market".

As for your mining in out of hte way places, how long would it be until the dozen or so ice belts in LowSec were heavily camped by pirates? I'm estimating 3 hours after DT if this was put into the game, effectively eliminating ice production.

You still haven't proved to US this is a good idea. Since you are wanting to change an existing game feature, the burden of proof is on you.

By the way, moving all ice belts into LowSec IS forcing players there. Both 0.0 AND HighSec players if they want to have a POS....

---

Originally by: Evita Achura

---

Edited by: Evita Achura on 04/05/2008 03:45:08
The devs already stated they won't be forcing anyone anywhere. Making discussions like this pointless.

---

Originally by: Jack Jombardo

---

Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/05/2008 03:47:20

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Moving Ice to lowsec is not forcing anyone into lowsec you still have the choice to jump into the system

---

You do as you like to forbit them to use there Macinaws.
They trained long time for them, they spend ISK for them and now you like to tell em "hey, go to lowsec and let me blow you up with my pimpt gangboot. Let me destroy your hard earned ISK within seconds and without any risk to me".
mega LOL ??

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I go to highsec all the time its a strange land let me tell you. Not strange enough to cancel my account though.

---

As we are able to go to lowsec (but do NOT like to) but don't have to.

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

How do you know? If they are idiots how come they are able to blow you up seems like they know what they are doing. Once again how do you know what must be done the only basis you have to go on is the luxury additions to lowsec being considered unattractive where as there has never been any attempt at moving a required asset from highsec.

---

Year, they know how to exploid and how to griff. You can read all about all ways here at this forum like "how to be an *******". And there realy isn't much needed to kill any Barge/Exhumer except the Hulk. Evey T1 fitted T1 cruiser can do it easily.

That's why they are at LOWSEC. Becouse they can gang without CONCORD (not that highsec is realy that much better but still a little bit).

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Will you please tell me what a real pirate is you keep calling every one wannabes and I'm sure they would love to meet your expectations. How do you know what I am going to post? This is a thread about moving ice not moving all ores and agents out of highsec

---

Every second day you can find a new idiotic thread about "move X to lowsec, I need more sheeps to gang". You call X = ice, the next X = "all level 4th", the one after X = "all Kernit/Omber". Equal what it is. It's all about "bring us more targets to farm *har har rofl rofl*".

If YOU like to PvP leave lowsec and go to 0.0!
But as you are just a "wannabe" you are to wimpy and whine for 0.0 as realy Pirates are there who kick your big fat ass

---

Originally by: Victor Forge

---

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

No ice in high sec.

Price of ice rises.
Ice mining becomes more profitable than regular mining.
People want money.
People go to some of the many low sec systems that would have ice.

---

You forgot
"People that don¦t want PvP will remain in high-sec since the risk in low-sec remains the same"

Desperate for easy targets?

---

Originally by: Buyerr

---

Originally by: Jacob Mei

---

Good idea with making items exclusive in low sec, bad idea to use ice. Why?

Alliances in 0.0 would be able to import the fuel to high sec and given that 0.0 is where the most profit is to be had it wont be worth the threat to mine in low sec.

What Low sec needs are exclusive features to drive people to go there. IE Ore with minerals that you can only find in low sec, not in high sec or 0.0 along with rewards of decent value that can only be found in low sec.

---

even if you could make 100mill a hour you would still not see the people living in highsec now going there you would just see the pirates already swarming the place being insanely wealthy.

you cannot lure or force people to lowsec with the extremely high probability of dying.

if you want people in low sec make it a LOT safer and thereby harder for pirates to gank you in lowsec, doing this would increase the number of people in lowsec.
as it is now you might as well go from highsec to 0.0 and skip lowsec since it is not nearly worth it.

---

Originally by: Lurana Lay

---

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

No ice in high sec.

Price of ice rises.
Ice mining becomes more profitable than regular mining.
People want money.
People go to some of the many low sec systems that would have ice.

---

Need more targets go to 0.0.

Need more targets go Empire and dec some peeps.

Whoops I forgot, you folks don't want PvP at all... you just want easy mode defenseless barge/hauler/n00b kills. Ooooo the danger and excitement! Bahahahha!

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Unless You are fighting a bot as long as there is a person controlling the character it is PvP by definition

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Originally by: Evita Achura

---

Edited by: Evita Achura on 04/05/2008 03:45:08
The devs already stated they won't be forcing anyone anywhere. Making discussions like this pointless.

---

A GM said that I would get in his pants

notice how much integrity our statements have since we both are just typing without providing evidence.

Of course Ice out of empire isn't forcing any one to do anything you don't have to mine ice

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

Moving ice from highsec allows you to mine veld, move trade goods, run missions, etc. No play styles orphaned

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

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: Silvana Kor'ah

---

The problem i see with ICE fields are the macro miners. Just look at the caldari high sec ice fields. 20 to 40 Hulks and Makinaws in a single belt. All in NPC corp and with soundfull names like "mike2508", "river6", "gala54" and so on. No haulers, just a going and coming every few minutes ...

---

Originally by: Una D

---

That is easy. Force players out of the NPC corps. Just make it so they can't do anything useful in them (no using barges, no criminal acts, no missions above L2, no going to 0.0). That will force the farmers in to player created corps. Than you just make the timer to jump corporation 48+ hours and war decc them. Players get PvP, police the macros and everybody is happy (except for the fact that prices would go up quite a bit).

---

Originally by: Marcus TheMartin

---

I'm not sure any one considers mining ice fun or soothing of course that is just an assumption

---