EVE General Discussion

As we know the fotm is that people in null/low want more carebears to head their way in the hope of padding their killboards; but carebears don't want to lose ships.

So how about this as a compromise, at least for mission runners:

When a player accepts a mission, he sets off as usual but instead of to a destination system to fight the mission, he goes to an acceleration gate, which takes him to ANY system in the region he's in - be it hi, lo or null.

The gate drops him into his mission area in the destination system - so he doesn't have to travel trough the normal gates and so can't get caught by gate camps.

He does his mission and then leaves via another accel gate that takes him back to the agent's system; but all the time he's in system running his mission, the residents of the lo or null system are trying to scan him down, and if successfully done, there's a new target to kill.

The idea being that players will not have a choice as to what security level the mission system is, but he won't need to worry about getting killed at the first gate into low sec he needs to use...the rewards and drops could also be varied according to where the mission is run; plus it gives the null or lowsec players a reason to leave the gates and actually hunt down people instead of them being handed to them on a plate at a gate.

Of course for true noobs, their missions - lets say up to a standing level of around 2 with any faction or NPC corp - are all done in hi-sec.

OK, flame away

The compromise is to make null individual income appealing enough that carebears will look at the potential profit and think "I might lose my ship, but overall the risk is worth it compared to doing x in highsec". The current system balance does not do that.

Making null/lowsec even less secureable (like this 'no more gatecamp' idea) makes it far less safe to do things in 0.0/low and thus makes it infinitely more risky and less appealing. It would result in the exact opposite of your intent.

Name a region that has a mix of high, low & nullsec systems.

speak for yourself

It's pretty much a given that noone would use this poorly-conceived 'feature' for PvE ever.

I don't think OP has really considered this idea fully from all sides. I mean I can respect each and every person and their ideas. It just seems to me that others offering up suggestions are only looking at it from their one sided perspective when CCP has to consider them all.

Agreed, a pve and pvp ship have very different setups and without a quick change option in space to refit, the OP's idea just isn't going to work.

Interesting suggestion though

I don't think that it's wrong to say that some people that play in null just want more people to play in null. We don't give a **** why you want to play here, just come play.

The more people playing in null the more fun null is. Same for low sec.



I don't understand were this idea that we're all just insideous bastards ploting against you comes from.

What's good on getting more "victims" to Nullsec?
Aren't you interested in balanced fights instead of pubstomping carebears?

I'm still fairly new in the world of EVE, but one thing I can say for sure:
It's not about losing a ship. It's about losing a ship and you can't do sh!t to prevent it.

To me it's ok if I lose a ship in PvP - even when I'm PvE'ing and getting ganked.
But it's not OK to get served on a silver plate to a fleet of coordinated gankers where your chance of survival equals zero.
Yes, this is EVE and it's ok. But you can't complain on people who are discouraged of the silver plate and want to prevent it.

In my humble opinion the low/nullsec residents are at a whole to blame for their "starvation". They sabotage themselves in terms of not getting fresh meat from hisec which they can hunt in low/nullsec.

Stay in Empire, we don't care about that. But if so, your ISK/hour should be around 25. ISK that is, not million.