These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Nevermind.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-01-14 22:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
The facts are against me; the idea formerly found here is the opposite of helpful. I apologize for wasting your time.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-01-14 23:35:40 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
I'll be honest, this crazy proposal is a straight nerf to high-sec mission income. Hopefully, this nerf to high-sec income, that is, offering level 3 missions from level 4 agents, is a form that's a bit more interesting - and perhaps a bit less immediately noticeable to a player - than slashing bounties across the board. At the very least, it should be easier for CCP to implement than re-designing every mission, and more nuanced than a flood of new level 4 missions with low payouts.

The primary reason to nerf high-sec income is to create a stealth boost to lowsec and nullsec income, by reducing the competition high-sec ISK faucets pose to those in more dangerous space. It's very difficult to compete with money supplies that are easily accessible, effectively limitless in supply, and in close proximity to market hubs. If we want to see more people move to 0.0, high-sec faucets must not be competitive with those found in null security space.

Increasing the value of ratting in null security space is not an option. Increasing the size of a faucet is very dangerous, and it is not a genie you can readily put back in the bottle. Level 4 income in high security space has long been a thorn in the side of players who want 0.0 space to be more desirable, but recognize that increasing the game's supply of ISK is not viable. Hopefully, this proposed change will solve that particular problem once and for all.

right, how about instead, we remove highsec incursions?

in my experience, those are MUCH larger isk faucets, and from a lore standpoint and even greater a common sense standpoint, make no sense.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-01-14 23:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
right, how about instead, we remove highsec incursions?

in my experience, those are MUCH larger isk faucets, and from a lore standpoint and even greater a common sense standpoint, make no sense.


I'm not against removing high-sec Incursions, but assuming CCP is unwilling to do so, I'd suggest, at the very least, that they remove site re-spawning from high-sec Incursions, and the content they spawned with is all the content they'd have.

Yes, Incursions are a big problem. Perhaps they're the bigger problem, but, they are not the only problem.
Saleani Tsolyani
Bey Su
#4 - 2014-01-14 23:57:59 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
I'll be honest, this crazy proposal is a straight nerf to high-sec mission income. Hopefully, this nerf to high-sec income, that is, offering level 3 missions from level 4 agents...

Where was this proposal first floated? I have not seen it in the CSM minutes nor in any dev blog.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-01-15 00:12:03 UTC
Saleani Tsolyani wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I'll be honest, this crazy proposal is a straight nerf to high-sec mission income. Hopefully, this nerf to high-sec income, that is, offering level 3 missions from level 4 agents...

Where was this proposal first floated? I have not seen it in the CSM minutes nor in any dev blog.


I first floated this idea on Twitter; it's not something that is scheduled to happen.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#6 - 2014-01-15 00:21:45 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
The primary reason to nerf high-sec income is to create a stealth boost to lowsec and nullsec income,


I don't know where this misconception come from, but proved to be wrong in any game design.

EVE is a game. And main purpose of a game is to prduce fun for the players.

People play in high, low or null cause they feel good with that kind of gameplay. There's no serious reason or interest in to forcing them to change. And the idea that offering more or less in-game currency to push such changes is simply silly. If this mechanic was true we already had the large majority of players in null.

Truh is: people play where they feel is fun for them to play. Isn't rocket science.

Example:

I hate mining in EVE. In my mind EVE mining is one of the msot boring thing ever seen in a game. Doesn't matter how much you increase the mining income I will never spend my time doing that. And if you directly or indirectly force my gameplay to change and re-focus on mining I will quit.

And same will do people feeling comfortable in HS gameplay if you try to push or force them to embrace a gameplay they dislike, they will quit.

If you think that some area of EVE need boost then you have to improve the related gameplay, not just increase or nerf the ISK.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-01-15 00:25:39 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
I don't know where this misconception come from, but proved to be wrong in any game design.

EVE is a game. And main purpose of a game is to prduce fun for the players.

People play in high, low or null cause they feel good with that kind of gameplay. There's no serious reason or interest in to forcing them to change. And the idea that offering more or less in-game currency to push such changes is simply silly. If this mechanic was true we already had the large majority of players in null.

Truh is: people play where they feel is fun for them to play. Isn't rocket science.

Example:

I hate mining in EVE. In my mind EVE mining is one of the msot boring thing ever seen in a game. Doesn't matter how much you increase the mining income I will never spend my time doing that. And if you directly or indirectly force my gameplay to change and re-focus on mining I will quit.

And same will do people feeling comfortable in HS gameplay if you try to push or force them to embrace a gameplay they dislike, they will quit.

If you think that some area of EVE need boost then you have to improve the related gameplay, not just increase or nerf the ISK.


This has nothing to do with making high-sec players go somewhere else. It's about making sure high-sec isn't a better place to make money for null-sec players.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-01-15 00:31:38 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Sura Sadiva wrote:
I don't know where this misconception come from, but proved to be wrong in any game design.

EVE is a game. And main purpose of a game is to prduce fun for the players.

People play in high, low or null cause they feel good with that kind of gameplay. There's no serious reason or interest in to forcing them to change. And the idea that offering more or less in-game currency to push such changes is simply silly. If this mechanic was true we already had the large majority of players in null.

Truh is: people play where they feel is fun for them to play. Isn't rocket science.

Example:

I hate mining in EVE. In my mind EVE mining is one of the msot boring thing ever seen in a game. Doesn't matter how much you increase the mining income I will never spend my time doing that. And if you directly or indirectly force my gameplay to change and re-focus on mining I will quit.

And same will do people feeling comfortable in HS gameplay if you try to push or force them to embrace a gameplay they dislike, they will quit.

If you think that some area of EVE need boost then you have to improve the related gameplay, not just increase or nerf the ISK.


This has nothing to do with making high-sec players go somewhere else. It's about making sure high-sec isn't a better place to make money for null-sec players.



And where is the data for that? My 0.0 friends tout the great isk/hr they get from nullsec ratting. None would stoop to the low level is that is lvl4 missions
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#9 - 2014-01-15 00:31:44 UTC
So.... the idea is from twitter... which demonstrates the dangers of IM tech: silly ideas are aired in 140 characters or less. Lol


Why not make NPC corps Wardec'able? That would put a serious dent into High Sec income. Twisted

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#10 - 2014-01-15 00:33:16 UTC
Even if high sec incursions are a larger faucet than level 4 missions, if anything is nerfed, it should be the missions. Why? Because they are solo content whereas the incursions are group content. Group content is, at least in my experience, way more dynamic and interesting. It introduces people to communities. It is therefore way better for retention.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-01-15 00:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Petrified wrote:
So.... the idea is from twitter... which demonstrates the dangers of IM tech: silly ideas are aired in 140 characters or less. Lol


Why not make NPC corps Wardec'able? That would put a serious dent into High Sec income. Twisted


The idea is from my own head. Twitter is only a venue.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-01-15 02:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
I don't particularly believe that hisec needs to be nerfed in order to compel people to spend more time in low and null. The reason I think this is that there isn't anything wrong with the playstyles that take place in hi sec. Mission runners do their thing, exploration and mining take place. There are ganks, wardecs, people scout WHs to invade, and a hundred other practices happen. Hi sec right now, though it isn't the place that people envision when they think about eve, is where the majority of the game is played, and is a vibrant community.

The problem is null. People don't want to go to null for a myriad of reasons, and nerfing hi sec doesn't solve any of them.

Also, although a lot of players do missions to make isk, I'd hardly call lvl 4 missions an isk faucet.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#13 - 2014-01-15 02:02:55 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Even if high sec incursions are a larger faucet than level 4 missions, if anything is nerfed, it should be the missions. Why? Because they are solo content whereas the incursions are group content. Group content is, at least in my experience, way more dynamic and interesting. It introduces people to communities. It is therefore way better for retention.


Problem of missions in respect of incursion is not that one is solo content and the other is not. Problem is that missions are an infinite resource freely spawnable by the players. But this is true in HS as in low or null.

However HS Level 4 were already nerfed a lot, several times in the last years. FW LP stores is the last, huge, indirect nerf to HS missons, cause FW flood the market with the same LP store items and drop the prices down. On the contrary null sec lev.4 and 5 not only pay much more but give unique items from pirate LP stores.

Beside this, the last thing EVE needs is to punish solo gameplay. "Solo" doesn't mean not being part of the community, means simply that sometime people don't want (or cannot for real life issues) to be forced to do anything to submit to a grup schedule.

Gameplay have to be scalable, people don't have to be forced to join a group or quit; and EVE need to improve scalable gameplay to lower (or anyway more flexible) numbers.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#14 - 2014-01-15 02:07:10 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
This has nothing to do with making high-sec players go somewhere else. It's about making sure high-sec isn't a better place to make money for null-sec players.


And what HS activity is more profitable in repsect of their corrispondent in null? Because in my experience is not even close to be so. PVE in null is often in the order of 300-400% more profitable in respect of LS, go figure compared to HS.

Also in null there's way less competition for reources/spawns and so on.
Beside null have also his specific, unique, income faucet.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2014-01-15 04:00:55 UTC
Delusional.

Casual players who need the freedom to play when and where they want for however long they want and then disappear for as long as they want (for numerous real life reasons) are never going to subject themselves to the restrictions of null.

Whilst this proposed change may make the occasional null sec player feel warm and fuzzy about his personal choice to be in null it will not encourage anyone to move to null.

Its like saying "we need more indusrty in Somalia under the warlords, lets reduce the income of European and American workers because they will go and look for jobs in Somalia and meanwhile they may even join a local gang and realise they actually like fighting".
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#16 - 2014-01-15 05:07:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Seranova Farreach
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I'll be honest, this crazy proposal is a straight nerf to high-sec mission income. Hopefully, this nerf to high-sec income, that is, offering level 3 missions from level 4 agents, is a form that's a bit more interesting - and perhaps a bit less immediately noticeable to a player - than slashing bounties across the board. At the very least, it should be easier for CCP to implement than re-designing every mission, and more nuanced than a flood of new level 4 missions with low payouts.

The primary reason to nerf high-sec income is to create a stealth boost to lowsec and nullsec income, by reducing the competition high-sec ISK faucets pose to those in more dangerous space. It's very difficult to compete with money supplies that are easily accessible, effectively limitless in supply, and in close proximity to market hubs. If we want to see more people move to 0.0, high-sec faucets must not be competitive with those found in null security space.

Increasing the value of ratting in null security space is not an option. Increasing the size of a faucet is very dangerous, and it is not a genie you can readily put back in the bottle. Level 4 income in high security space has long been a thorn in the side of players who want 0.0 space to be more desirable, but recognize that increasing the game's supply of ISK is not viable. Hopefully, this proposed change will solve that particular problem once and for all.

right, how about instead, we remove highsec incursions?

in my experience, those are MUCH larger isk faucets, and from a lore standpoint and even greater a common sense standpoint, make no sense.


no no no and no. its risk vs reward. you gotta get 40 people togehter. 2 boosters an FC like 8 logi.. its not an easy thing to do and if we had to go into low for them i can guarentee nullsec derps would just harras the incursion runners cause they are bored as is the way in null unless your currently in a conflict with another alliance and alot of the isk from incursions goes down into low/null to get blown up anyway so it balances somewhat.

ps. also even rooks n kings said incursions are a good way for new pilots to "cut their teeth" on fleet manouvers and all that.. with out that you will probably see more low/null FCs having anurisms from all the hurp a durp happening cause they have never been in a fleet befor.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Jeremiah Woods
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-01-15 05:16:42 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Sura Sadiva wrote:
I don't know where this misconception come from, but proved to be wrong in any game design.

EVE is a game. And main purpose of a game is to prduce fun for the players.

People play in high, low or null cause they feel good with that kind of gameplay. There's no serious reason or interest in to forcing them to change. And the idea that offering more or less in-game currency to push such changes is simply silly. If this mechanic was true we already had the large majority of players in null.

Truh is: people play where they feel is fun for them to play. Isn't rocket science.

Example:

I hate mining in EVE. In my mind EVE mining is one of the msot boring thing ever seen in a game. Doesn't matter how much you increase the mining income I will never spend my time doing that. And if you directly or indirectly force my gameplay to change and re-focus on mining I will quit.

And same will do people feeling comfortable in HS gameplay if you try to push or force them to embrace a gameplay they dislike, they will quit.

If you think that some area of EVE need boost then you have to improve the related gameplay, not just increase or nerf the ISK.


This has nothing to do with making high-sec players go somewhere else. It's about making sure high-sec isn't a better place to make money for null-sec players.


The point is: Who wants more people in nullsec space? You? I doubt so.

Like all others who demand a hisec nerf, you seem to want more targets in nullsec space. There is a difference between peoople and targets you may be aware of. People are accepted, maybe greeted, or ignored. Targets are shot right on the spot. That's what players like you try to do as soon as anybody leaves hisec space.

Hisec players aren't playing mainly in hisec space because there is that much money to earn. They -we- are playing in hisec space becaus we don't want to easily be made targets. Everyone is aware you can earn much more money in null than in high. Hisec players stay n hisec though. Why do you expect a nerf to change that?

On the other hand, nullsec players who move to hisec for a better income may have had some experiences with roaming gangs. Nullsec players looking for easy targets can make nullsec less profitable than hisec. Those who move back into high were never "nullsec players" in the first place.

Now, if I'm all wrong, people in nullsec are all nice people only shooting at others to defend themselves, you are a player eager to help newbs in null and all I wrote is total bullshit, here is an advice to get more people into nullsec:


Go NRDS. All of you playing in null. And set no one to red.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#18 - 2014-01-15 05:17:09 UTC
high sec missions maybe 30 to 50m an hour.
incursions with a decent fleet in high sec 90 to 130m an hour.

now lets look at lowsec. FW is isk printing atm.


null.. 1 rat alone can be worth 1 hour+ of mission or incursion running (bounty and loot drop dependent)

as for exploration i have maybe had 10m an hour in highsec and id expect that to be maybe 20 to 40 in low and a stupid amount in nullsec.

wormholes. not a bad place with the right fleet comp you can get 100 to 200m an hour in c5+ capital escalations
the minerals and gas are nice too but the drawback of all this is your cut off from just being able to gtfo when you want to with out adequate knowledge/scanning/pipe to the outside which is the balancing factor of them.

so basically the ESS is good for null cause it means people can steal up to 25% of the iskies of a ratter but the ratter still gets a direct 80% from the rat anyway plus loot so all they gotta do is let more people rat in their sov have a few people to protect the ESS and let the money roll in, this way you get more traffic more isk and so on.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#19 - 2014-01-15 05:49:19 UTC
Half the EvE subscription base now one level lower.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#20 - 2014-01-15 06:17:46 UTC
I'm alway kind of confused by people talking about all that money just poring out of high. At my best I pull 60mil/hr doing IVs, I can do 250/hr in low if I get a clear system and I'm way less bored doing it. And I don't know what you people make in null but if you use carriers and marauders doing it I'd be right in guessing it's alot more than that.

And that doesn't even mention how much safer most sov is than high for shiny things.
12Next page