These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should High sec go away?

Author
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#301 - 2015-08-17 03:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Kinete Jenius wrote:
EDIT : Hell the example provided by the person that made the original t1 cruiser comment has... t2 modules...
Ahem.

I wrote:
...T1 PvE cruiser fitted with T1 guns using faction ammo and drones.
No mention of any modules aside from T1 guns.

The Vexor is a T1 cruiser, the fit I provided has T1 guns fitted and is used for PvE, ergo it meets the criteria specified.

You're the one that made the claim that a gank destroyer has the same DPS as a battleship, I disagreed and have backed up my claim to them having a little more than a T1 cruiser with a PvE fit.

Your move.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#302 - 2015-08-17 05:44:48 UTC
Those last 3 pages were amazing.
Sometimes I wish Tippia's forum victories would create killmails...

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Salvos Rhoska
#303 - 2015-08-17 11:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
HS is crucial to the game in a number of ways. From incubating new players, to providing the field for risk-averse players who nonetheless crucially also fuel the economy in terms of resources aquired and purchased, a space for subsidising action of other sector players on alts, a reasonably safe and stable network of market hubs and competitive exchange economically.

I see these concerns with HS:

1) Ganking:
Is too technically convoluted, involved and specialised for me to comment on specifically. Reason for that is its essentially bypassing existing rules, in a fashion held acceptable, with an unclear boundary except set by precedent and sporadic CCP reaction to exceptionally gross bending of rules. I hold with the principle that risk should occur there too, and is dependant on content created by players. It is crucial to EVE ethos, that also superbling ships and diamond haulers in HS have to deal with the core risk of player aggression. Losing this is unthinkable, and detracts from the game in ways that inherently reduce the core features that make EVE so very unique and unusual in todays gaming market. CCP has been, imo, very good at walking the line in this, and its an enormous credit to them.

Having said that, if it becomes apparent HS ganking (in any one of its ingenius forms) becomes too profitable in conparison to risk/expense, then yes, it needs addressing. I have full confidence CCP will recognize that and act accordingly then, as I do in the HS ganking community also accepting that, adaptubg and running with it, keeping close to their thoughts that they understand some balance is necessary for the game overall, no matter how far they can push the limits.

It should never, ever, be safe to fly a multibillion ship in modules or cargo, anywhere in EVE.

2) HS exploration/missioning/incursions:
HS exploration profit of data/relic sites was nerfed through a number of commensurate changes. I applaud this, because when properly fitted, covops capable exploration vessels are inherently very safe throughout all space. Most new players acknowledge this, and "practice" in HS before moving out to other sectors, which is a direction that is altogether excellent for the community overall. Exploration to my mind has been a huge success for funneling players out of HS into WH/null (and LS, butbto a lesser degree,nwhich is a LS thread purpose and too large to expand on here). Weirdly, combat exploration has remained almost as profitable throughout. Im not sure what to pin this on, but I suspect its due to the sustained desirability/consumption of the drops in Pve and pvp markets, as well as the reluctance of many HS explorers to try pve sites. They prefer the data/relic site hacking minigame, to shooting NPCs for a far more lucrative reward, possibly because HS combat sigs also require more skilling (and obciously a very low, but ecistant, risk of ship destruction if you dont know what you are doing). The rate of Combat Sig spawn is probably integral to this too, and apparently at the sweet spot. Someone mentioned frequency of 5/10 escalation spawns from anoms, and how they also now are always in HS. Im divided on this, but agree they are perhaps too frequent atm, and too safe as HS spawns.

Missioning is imo still too lucrative in HS, at too little risk. I applaud gank efforts to curtail this. Im unsure how to tackle this, as missioning inherently combines so many profit benefits ranging from bounty->loot->salvage>LP->mission isk reward. Agent dispersal is systemic and id rather not engage that. Mission parameters, interms of blitzing, are also anhuge can of worms id rather not bother with. Profits should be reduced, someway, somehow. But full bling missioning ships in HS **** me off to no end. Its just wrong. There should be incidental, but serious, intervention in this kind of irresponsible fitting/piloting.

Incursions have, to an extent, saturated their own market. Logistics of joining a fleet in terms of RL time and skills/fit are escalating accordingly. Considering the specifics of running an incursion, I appreciate the essentially pve and noncombative compensation in profits, but I wohld like to see more opportunity for competition between incursion fleets, ESPECIALLY in pvp potentially, in incursion systems. We already have systemwide negatives applied by the incursion. I think there is a real potential here to open up HS pvp in incursion systems between fleets and incidental aggressors, by modifying CONCORD intervention. The precedent is there. CCP just needs to develop the balls to introduce pvp risk to incursion systems.

3)HS Industry/trading:
The most difficult to address of all the above. Last years industry changes helped, but not in the way I would have preferred. The choice then was to incentivize NS industry with bonuses, and ease transit of material to and from HS to NS, and vice versa.. Personally I would have preferred reducing HS industry efficiency, and resitricted material transport, to the end of incentivizing NS local productiin and resource sourcing, as opposed to improving NS refinement/reprocessing, to cross sourcing them from HS markets which are inherently completely a different animal to NS ones.

Industry changes in HS are compensated by the plethora of enormous interconnected competitive markets, huge presence of resource providers and the overall security of sourcing, production and transportation of those. The sum total of these is almost insurmountable in terms of changing the favored areas of production and material sourcing.

HS could be potentially superficially nerfed, but I think the extent that would require would have to be so extreme (considering the sheer qmount of resource/industry production in HS and the massively populated markets) that it would ruin the game.

Instead, I prefer curtailing and limiting safe transit of material to and from HS, so as to insulate these two areas of productiin from each other.
Salvos Rhoska
#304 - 2015-08-17 12:12:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Continued--->

NS systems should ideally be sourcing their own resources and production locally, not by transit from HS.
As established last year, local resource/production in NS is more efficient than HS, if the system can be secured.
However, due to economies of scale and the overbearing sheer quantity of HS resource/industry, its still cheaper and less risky, and less corps/alliance time consuming to simply source from HS, with the same player entities doing it there rather than locally in NS, and just moving the result to NS. Not to mention exploiting the HS markets in terms of their internal competition and lower resulting product costs.

Something (Im not sure what) needs to be done to either systemically, or in terms of player action, to curtail transit of material (as resourcesnor finished products), between NS-HS, in both directions. Currently, its geographic in terms of LS activity, but also systemically enabled hy jump freighters and other safe module/skill related safe transit mechanics

As to HS station trading, I think this is more or less immune to any rational change. The same rules app,y to all secs in this regard, and as universal the only controlling factors are inherently local and based in how much business a hub supplies.Station traders should, and can, remain unaltered as the driving force behind economic activity in that region, according to industry/resource sourcing there.

As much as I hate the essentially noncombative minigame of station trading, it carries its own risk and competition systems whichare, even in EVE, remarkably congruent with IRL competitive systems. Furthermore, these players are key to providing that competition in any given hub.

Adjustment of station trading is, ultimately, beyond my understanding, except for the simplified observations Ive made above. We need a qualified and informed economist(or a whole team) to evaluate this. Ship balance, Sov mechanics, and all other concerns pale in comparison to the complexity of the underlying EVE economic systems related to station trading. Yet make no mistake, all of EVE is dependant upon it, for better or worse, whether you like that or not.

A single affluent, experienced and committed station trader can shift an economy anywhere, in any direction,, including hubs,
Sov and territorial skirmishes aside, these are the players who actually run the EVE economy on a fundamental level.
Be afraid, and ally them if possible. These rare guys have the education and spreadsheet understanding to either destroy/create a local economy anywhere.
Kitten Ripper
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#305 - 2015-08-18 12:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitten Ripper
The better questions is: how can high-sec go away? It seems as if it is as unchanging as the stars and the universe itself.
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
#306 - 2015-08-18 12:59:49 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Short answer

No

Long answer

Noooo...


Not empty quoting
Kitten Ripper
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#307 - 2015-08-18 14:21:14 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
HS is crucial to the game in a number of ways. ...

I disagree and I think it is a matter of opinion. One can see it as being a different game next to another game within a greater sandbox, just like DUST is a game of its own. And I believe this is the case for some players. Not everyone sees it the same way, nor will CCP. It is rather open to interpretation.

Strictly speaking, high-sec seems to me like if it is a very old game mechanic and in desperate need of a great overhaul. New player entry locations should not be fixed locations in a fixed and artificially secured space, where the new players then become a member of some meaningless NPC corporation. Rather should the new players be treated like a resource that is worth fighting over. Then, when we can take control over it, might we see new players more as actual new content and not so much as "stupid, dumb and annoying noobs with a tendency to cause drama". Instead, you want to give new players a purpose and being a part of something bigger instantly. The game's trailers do make it look like it was an instant experience, but the reality is that there is a huge learning curve at first and with mostly only noobs and risk-averse players in high-sec does one quickly feel lost instead of being a part of the great, awesome experience that the game can be and which the trailers portray.

At least I have not yet seen a trailer that showed how 8 hours of mining and mission running in high-sec can be super exciting. I hate to say it, because it will likely cause drama, but high-sec and the way it currently works stands just in the way.
MTB Fritz Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2015-08-18 14:50:03 UTC
From a new players perspective I always thought the current mix was actually pretty nice.

High sec is for carebears like me (thats what people told me) but its not safe ENOUGH to not pay attention or be on your toes. Its a nice atmosphere at first without feeding you to the wolves.

Of course you can run into scams and gankers but its probably be much less frequent then as if the whole game was a no-mans land. And it allows players to get accomodated at their own pace which is incredible valuable IMO.

Some people will jump into low and null sec right away others might be more "frightened" and decide to take their time (like me).
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#309 - 2015-08-18 15:22:47 UTC
Interesting chat about gank fits.

Why not take it to the proper forum. Or start a thread where it might be relevant. It has nothing to do with removing high sec.

If there was no high sec, there would be no suicide gankers. They'd all have moved to the game with the next easiest way to grief new players.

As I just logged out, there were 18k characters on line. Take a second and think what it would be if you deducted the ones in high sec. It would be a pretty empty server, wouldn't it?

Mr Epeen Cool
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#310 - 2015-08-18 15:23:23 UTC
yep lets get rid of high sec for pvp all the time, and ship/equipment loss so people would never have to mine or pve in order to afford new ships and equipment to replace losses. thatll fix eve

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Wild Rho
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#311 - 2015-08-18 15:58:36 UTC
Getting rid of high sec is unrealistic and would do more harm than good long term but it would be nice to see the the different empires split up more by creating boundaries of low / null sec between them. Instead of a single huge blob of empire space in the middle we would have Federation space, Republic space, State space and Empire space with their own hubs and resource distribution.

That said I can't ever see it changing after all these years.
NightmareX
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#312 - 2015-08-18 16:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: NightmareX
Well first of all, high sec wont get smaller. And secondly, it absolutely wont go away, EVER, because high sec is as much part of the game as PVP is a part of the game. You can't just take it away without replacing it with something else that will make the game better for everyone. Taking it away is the same as taking both of the front wheels on a car away and think the car will run good after that.

So please stop the nonsense that EVE will be a better game without high sec, because it wont. I have been playing this game since March 2004, so i know pretty well how this game works. Just htfu and accept it that others like to play in empire the way it is now and don't want to play the game the way you think is best.

P.S. I live in 0.0 space my self now, but i still takes full advantages of high sec when i can and when i have the opportunity. Yes, i'm everywhere nowdays.

Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:

1: Asteroid Madness

2: Clash of the Empires

3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama

Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#313 - 2015-08-18 16:48:30 UTC
The phrase "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" is one of the first things a rookie learns when starting an eve account.
So keep on asking for hs income nerfs (because that's the only reason these sort of threads start out)... see how it "positively" affects risk adversity.

The reason explorers dare to venture in ls and null straight from the beginning is simple: a heron is very easy to replace and that's the only way to earn some income in that space without becoming part from the pseudo social hierarchy of the blue donut.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#314 - 2015-08-18 17:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Kitten Ripper wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
HS is crucial to the game in a number of ways. ...

I disagree and I think it is a matter of opinion. One can see it as being a different game next to another game within a greater sandbox, just like DUST is a game of its own. And I believe this is the case for some players. Not everyone sees it the same way, nor will CCP. It is rather open to interpretation.

Strictly speaking, high-sec seems to me like if it is a very old game mechanic and in desperate need of a great overhaul. New player entry locations should not be fixed locations in a fixed and artificially secured space, where the new players then become a member of some meaningless NPC corporation. Rather should the new players be treated like a resource that is worth fighting over. Then, when we can take control over it, might we see new players more as actual new content and not so much as "stupid, dumb and annoying noobs with a tendency to cause drama". Instead, you want to give new players a purpose and being a part of something bigger instantly. The game's trailers do make it look like it was an instant experience, but the reality is that there is a huge learning curve at first and with mostly only noobs and risk-averse players in high-sec does one quickly feel lost instead of being a part of the great, awesome experience that the game can be and which the trailers portray.

At least I have not yet seen a trailer that showed how 8 hours of mining and mission running in high-sec can be super exciting. I hate to say it, because it will likely cause drama, but high-sec and the way it currently works stands just in the way.


Thanks for the response, but I think you are focusing unduly on trailers and impressions of the game from advertisement, rather than the reality and necessity of HS existance as I detailed at great length in my post.

Which culminates here, in you basically agreeing with me:
", but the reality is that there is a huge learning curve at first and with mostly only noobs and risk-averse players in high-sec does one quickly feel lost instead of being a part of the great, awesome experience that the game can be and which the trailers portray."

I think you are confusing starter systems with HS overall. Even HS, though nominaly safe, is far riskier than starter systems with their own peculiar rules. (Though arguably starter systems can be even riskier due to some players trolling the ever loving hell out of capsuleers who cant even operate a jump gate, let alone deal with aggression. I find it cheap, and in many cases its against the rules, but more on that below).

Fuethermore, new players are not insulated from moving to other secs. Nothing prevents them from doing so.
Except, perhaps, that they are so goddam new that they cant warp to gate and have no clue to operare the map.
Their own ignorance and lack of learning/experience is what resitricts their movement and potential, not EVE.

There are two irreconcilable schools of thought as to noob experience in EVE, both which have merit.
1) The Incubation School, that players need time to learn and adapt to the games steep curve, not only in terms of UI, simple techniques and game functions, but also to "rewrite" what many new players today consider as an MMO to translate into what EVE is as a very different animal.This game is enormously complicated. Even 10yr vets dont know it all.
2) The HTFU School, which proposes to throw a noob into the deep end of shark infested waters, and only the strong survive. This game is hard, in all ways, and if you cant cut it and instead whine and break apart, wont figure your **** out, right at the start, or get over it, you dont deserve a place in it.

I prescribe to the former, but acknowledge the valid points of the latters.
Overall an intermix of the two is best. On my part from 1) I support and inform new players in channels, but alongside me players from 2) troll and grief the hell out of noobs, and teach them that part of the game.
Together, the start is better for all, teaches them both, and is a compromise, than if only one school ruled.

I stand by my earlier extended explanation of the necessary function of HS, and think I have included extenuating circumstances and considerations enough to show that its important, an opportunity, and a wealth, for everyone. Statistics provided by other posters also show the core that HS represents, not just for carebears, but also the hardest pvp extremists at the furthest expanses of space on their alts. Everyone needs HS, sooner or later, and for better or worse. The economy in particular needs it.

HS is, as I argue, too profitable, but its reason for existance, and necessity, is central to EVE.
Not that safety even there cannot, and should not, be dropped so as to keep EVE universally a pvp centered and risky environment.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#315 - 2015-08-18 17:20:47 UTC
Wild Rho wrote:
Getting rid of high sec is unrealistic and would do more harm than good long term but it would be nice to see the the different empires split up more by creating boundaries of low / null sec between them. Instead of a single huge blob of empire space in the middle we would have Federation space, Republic space, State space and Empire space with their own hubs and resource distribution.

That said I can't ever see it changing after all these years.



Oh good. Everyone will live 4 jumps from Jita and the rest of empire would look like Aridia.

Everyone asking for High-Sec removal needs to pay attention to the whining in Null and Low right now. They all say it is stagnant, not enough content, not enough players, not enough not enough not enough.

Do we really want the rest of the game to be just like THAT?!

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.

Kitten Ripper
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#316 - 2015-08-18 18:27:00 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
...
HS is, as I argue, too profitable, but its reason for existance, and necessity, is central to EVE.
Not that safety even there cannot, and should not, be dropped so as to keep EVE universally a pvp centered and risky environment.

Of course... Nobody is seriously demanding to just drop all security levels to 0.0 and to get rid of CONCORD. My point however is that I can imagine a game where high-sec does not exist, but where it has been replaced by a completely player-driven environment. It will take many small and gradual changes, but who is really afraid of such changes when they are being planned and executed carefully?

So, yes, I can well see an EVE where new players enter the game directly in 0.0 systems, but where the system has to be secured by an alliance first or it will fall into the hands of another alliance. The reward for holding the system will be that the new player becomes a member of their alliance. This may sound like an abduction at first, but most new players will be rather happy to become instantly part of a space holding alliance and to hit the ground running even if it is just in a frigate.

You then mention HS being too profitable, but this is just another matter of opinion. As long as everyone has got the same opportunity to make said profit is there no foul play. You simply have chosen not to make that profit, but to do something else instead.

What it does not need is a fixed system. It also does not need Jita (and in fact we do have more than one market hub in game). Players will always make their own markets if necessary or even mine and produce for themselves. The fixed structures that high-sec represents are merely crutches in comparison to the possibilities. High-sec once was a necessity to get the game started, because it will have been hard for CCP to predict the future of their game. So they must have decided to go with this fixed approach to entering the game experience, but EVE has come a long way and we know now what makes EVE the most fun.

We then already fight over resources and we make high-sec insecure purposely. CCP should change the game so that this energy gets channelled and gets used to replace high-sec with something better. And do not just always think it can only get worse.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#317 - 2015-08-18 18:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
There are two irreconcilable schools of thought as to noob experience in EVE, both which have merit.
1) The Incubation School, that players need time to learn and adapt to the games steep curve, not only in terms of UI, simple techniques and game functions, but also to "rewrite" what many new players today consider as an MMO to translate into what EVE is as a very different animal.This game is enormously complicated. Even 10yr vets dont know it all.
2) The HTFU School, which proposes to throw a noob into the deep end of shark infested waters, and only the strong survive. This game is hard, in all ways, and if you cant cut it and instead whine and break apart, wont figure your **** out, right at the start, or get over it, you dont deserve a place in it.

Mostly irreconcilable, yes, but only mostly.

I actually think it would be an interesting to see what would happen if the starter systems were small islands of 1.0 in a (very shallow) sea of -0.5. In other words, you spend your first time getting to know the stuff that's taught in NPE, and your first major test is to just manage to get out of that area and into safe(r) space. That makes the players — and indeed the overall design of the game — the first and last “boss battle” you have to win in EVE, and as all boss battles, it's ultimately a question of “have you learned the systems of the game that you've been taught so far?”

Since the opposition consists of the UI other players, you get some interesting interaction points. One is that the newbie who fails can ask what he did wrong and (occasionally) get some practical tips and answers for the next attempt. Another is that we have that absolutely crucial first contact — the one that has led to so many newbies being picked up by corps who stomped them hard, but who liked the spirit they exhibited. A third is that there is no set solution: you can try to sneak out (maybe give them a n00bship-only “civilian cloak” as a reward for some NPE mission?), or just go when the population is low, or do the school (of fish) thing and overwhelm the campers with sheer numbers, or maybe scan out one of the newbie-friendly direct-to-high wormholes, or maybe pay someone to escort you… etc etc etc.

Yes, there will be newbie gankers galore — indeed, that's kind of the point — but placing it, say, one jump through null and one jump through low means that the types of players who prey on newbies in 0.9 and 1.0 systems will not go there. After all, there will be bigger fish around… and the systems themselves would still work as the same old newbie systems, where you get slapped hard if you do mess around with the players in there.

The concept teaches the mid-stages of that incubation through a one-time dose of HTFU. The systems should quite literally be a sieve, when you look at them from an outside perspective, and the new player has to take what they've learned and come up with one out of the myriad of workable plans available, and execute that using the skillz (as opposed to skills) they've picked up.
Salvos Rhoska
#318 - 2015-08-18 19:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Kitten Ripper wrote:
HS too ezy.

I had an enormous post for your reading pleasure, but lost it due to this ******* tablet.
Summa summarum, could you write up a numbered list of changes (similar to what I did above)?

Tippia wrote:
Hardcore Noob World Park


Hello again, Tippia.

Im all for ideas to innovate and improve the new player experience, but I had trouble understanding yours.
I see how you are trying to systemically integrate many aspects of EVE into the first moments of a new players flight licence, artificially, and restrict exit out if it.

Basically, as I see it, and if Ive understood you, to merge incubation/HFTU methods into one noob PvE/AI isolated experience.

I cant agree. I think being thrust into EVE systems, even in starter ones, is the best alternative. Tutorials are ambiguous and may need refinement on speciric wording, as well as mission parameters, which lead to the same questions over and over in rookie chat. Many players, at their own risk, tell Aura to go **** herself and start out straight away (hilariously often into wormholes and imminent destruction or desperate cries of hownthe fuckndo I get outnof here)

As I said in previous post and other related to noobs, information and communication is key. The initial hurdles are extremely simple, but sometimes insurmountable to noobs cos of UI ane EVE complexity.

A compromise between Incubation/HTFU is possible through an intermix of players who provide info in newb channels, and those who blow them up for teh lols (especially when they first leave their station and spot a flashy).

Anyways, the noob experience is an enormous topic, but not really the point of this thread. Noobs are a part of HS, but insulated., till either they learn enough from incubation school, or balls it out in HTFU school. This thread though is specific to HS issues, and though we got distracted on noobs, its not really the point here.

Id be very happy to discuss the noob experience with you in voice sometime though, if you are up for that.
This and any other number of topics. Open invitation, rain cheque, etc.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#319 - 2015-08-18 20:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Im all for ideas to innovate and improve the new player experience, but I had trouble understanding yours.
I see how you are trying to systemically integrate many aspects of EVE into the first moments of a new players flight licence, artificially, and restrict exit out if it.

Basically, as I see it, and if Ive understood you, to merge incubation/HFTU methods into one noob PvE/AI isolated experience.

I cant agree. I think being thrust into EVE systems, even in starter ones, is the best alternative. Tutorials are ambiguous and may need refinement on speciric wording, as well as mission parameters, which lead to the same questions over and over in rookie chat. Many players, at their own risk, tell Aura to go **** herself and start out straight away (hilariously often into wormholes and imminent destruction or desperate cries of hownthe fuckndo I get outnof here)

That's kind of what I'm after, but in a more structured way.

That final test to get access to the rest of the game is when the player finally says “screw this, I'm out of here”.

I still believe that some of the basics need to be taught in tutorials. It doesn't really have to be all that much — just enough to load up the ship with stuff and make it go forward — but the real trick is in exactly that social curve that EVE relies on fairly heavily. The earlier the player go down that path, the better, but it also can't be an absolutely exclusive path. It's something the player should “discover” as a handy short-cut. There are four general obstacles, and mostly cognitive ones, that I see that the NPE needs to help the new player overcome:

• It's ok to die — a lot — especially to other players. Death is just a standard problem that you have to learn to take into account work around.
• Information and communication, as you mention, are the keys to survival, not SP or bigger ships or any of the stuff that other MMOs will steer you towards.
• Other players, in turn, are the key to that information and communication, even though (indeed, especially when) they're also your opposition.
• It's actually not that hard to survive outside of the automated highsec safety net, if you just make use of these resources.

I think the “escape from the island” style of NPE would help in providing those lessons and also helps by acting as a filter, of sorts. If a new player does not enjoy that small challenge, chances are that they will never really like EVE at all — better to find out now rather than later. It also lets the player more organically discover their first favourite activity to do, which will help them give some ground to stand on and grow from as they keep playing and possibly create the first seeds of social connections.

That's why this ties in to the question of highsec's purpose and existence: many of the issues that exist with highsec exist only because so many players don't see any other option. They should be taught — demonstratively, not just in skippable text — from day 1 that there are other ways of doing things, and none of them are particularly difficult if you just read up on, or ask around for, what needs to be done. This lesson will soften an absolute ton of current “musts” about how highsec works and how it is balanced against other parts of space. Yes, lost generation, old players set in their mould, old dogs and new tricks, yadda yadda — either way, reformation of highsec has to start at the beginning, and without a solid foundation of (player) skills, connections, and even just a slice of fabricated derring-do, such change is all but impossible.

That just leaves the problem of teaching the same lessons to the old scaredy-cats.
Salvos Rhoska
#320 - 2015-08-18 21:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Tippia wrote:

That's why this ties in to the question of highsec's purpose and existence: many of the issues that exist with highsec exist only because so many players don't see any other option. They should be taught — demonstratively, not just in skippable text — from day 1 that there are other ways of doing things, and none of them are particularly difficult if you just read up on, or ask around for, what needs to be done. This lesson will soften an absolute ton of current “musts” about how highsec works and how it is balanced against other parts of space. Yes, lost generation, old players set in their mould, old dogs and new tricks, yadda yadda — either way, reformation of highsec has to start at the beginning, and without a solid foundation of (player) skills, connections, and even just a slice of fabricated derring-do, such change is all but impossible.

That just leaves the problem of teaching the same lessons to the old scaredy-cats.

I see and acknowledge where you are coming from and going with this.
But not with your method.

I also appreciate how you are tying this into the early HS experience, and the reflection of that on new player behavior of ventueing outside of HS.

My view is a bit different, and essentially focused on IRL time to skill, and IRL time to either gather experience or knowledge.
Some will rage, but others agree, that SP is key. New players have precious few, and typically in al the wrong places.

As I said, Im Incubator school, and prefer noobs to play safe till they are both aware of risk, and skilled (vboth in SP and experience) to attempt greater challenges.

Exploration, and its reasonably trainable covops ships, have been instrumental towards the purpose of funnelling players out of HS to other sectors. Having said that, just about every new HS combat sig pilot has followed an expedition into LS and died crying at the threshold.

Retuening to topic, HS works as a secure base and incubator for new players.
The threshold to LS, let alone to NS or even more complicated WH mechanics, takes a lot of learning or you WILL explode.

Not exploding is bad. Just thatvthey need time to skill up and research where they are going before that.
Where the hell else to do that than HS? These players cant compete with others of 10+SP.

New player systems anyways are byond the scope of this thread.
Come at me on my previous 2 extended posts on HS, if you wish.
Otherwise we can discuss new players in another dedicated thread.