These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Low-sec Hopes and Changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mesacc
New Big Dog Mining
#741 - 2017-04-03 13:19:46 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Orin Solett wrote:

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.


Hmm.

So how would that be implemented?
Gategun buffs?


First, I agree with Orin. Im a long time highsec mission runner and I would love to start venturing in to lowsec to run missions but im at a disadvantage the second I jump through the gate. Any experienced gate camp will have my mission running battleship instalocked, scrammed and webbed the split second I de-cloak and already in to my armor before I can even get a target lock. Im a sitting duck the second i appear. My suggestion is expand the spawn range. Why do the gates spawn us so close? because of old game mechanics. The grids used to be a lot smaller and it spawns us so close due to the old mechanics of warping in 15km away and having to fly to the gate. Well grids are very large now. Allow us to spawn 100km away or more. That would at least give us a chance to either get a target lock so we could fight back (which PvPers claim they want) or align and GTFO (at which point you could still scan us down and follow).
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#742 - 2017-04-03 13:41:37 UTC
Mesacc wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Orin Solett wrote:

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.


Hmm.

So how would that be implemented?
Gategun buffs?


First, I agree with Orin. Im a long time highsec mission runner and I would love to start venturing in to lowsec to run missions but im at a disadvantage the second I jump through the gate. Any experienced gate camp will have my mission running battleship instalocked, scrammed and webbed the split second I de-cloak and already in to my armor before I can even get a target lock. Im a sitting duck the second i appear. My suggestion is expand the spawn range. Why do the gates spawn us so close? because of old game mechanics. The grids used to be a lot smaller and it spawns us so close due to the old mechanics of warping in 15km away and having to fly to the gate. Well grids are very large now. Allow us to spawn 100km away or more. That would at least give us a chance to either get a target lock so we could fight back (which PvPers claim they want) or align and GTFO (at which point you could still scan us down and follow).


The problem with this is that it would eliminate the "warp back" solution when a gate in null is bubbled. Might be a worthwhile exchange... but that would be an impact.

Gate camps are the biggest barrier to entry for players to any part of space in eve. There is a reason you see more alphas and new omegas wandering through wormhole space than in null or low... and that's because it's rare (not impossible, but rare) to hit a WH "gate" camp. (hole camp?) I think I've ran into one in the time I've been wandering through wormholes (and I think they were staging to make a raid into the null-sec space on the other side of the wormhole, not specifically camping the wormhole).

As for buffing the gate guns... I'd say buff them and have them switch targets frequently. Have them focus fire on ships using warp scramblers or disruptors for example. Have them wipe out drones. Have THEM randomly web/neut/damp/ecm those they're firing on.

Make gate camping a situation where it generally only works with slower moving ships... you have a scout... he see's a ship with a nice cargo and charges in to web while everyone else warps to him. They have to kill it and get out quick before they get shredded by the gate defenses. Then they have to wait or log in a non-aggress timer alt to act as scout for the next attempt. Make it more interactive than just sit on gate and shoot all non-blues coming through.
Orin Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#743 - 2017-04-03 16:34:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Orin Solett wrote:

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.


Hmm.

So how would that be implemented?
Gategun buffs?

Not quite sure really What?

Gate camping is a legitimate play style. Honestly, being able to scan the other side of a gate without having to log into an alt would do wonders. If I have the information that there are campers on the other side of a gate, I can play accordingly. And gate campers still would have access to any negligent travelers who didn't bother to check what the other side of a gate looks like.

The only downside I see is that it makes player-run intel channels less necessary, but I think they'll still be used just for alerting people about what's going on in a particular region/constellation that they're in.

Not sure if that would solve it, but it might be worth considering without having to go to such extremes as shooting campers in PVP space.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#744 - 2017-04-03 16:48:46 UTC
What I like about low sec...the combat spawn sites, great income, making millions quickly is the biggest secret that low sec dwellers don't want known, all the lies upon lies of how it is not worth it, bull, been there and loved it, especially the upgraded NPC's make it fun and challenging, the problem with low sec is low sec dwellers who **** everything within, but hey they put in the risk so no hate just my opinion.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#745 - 2017-04-03 17:00:43 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
What I like about low sec...the combat spawn sites, great income, making millions quickly is the biggest secret that low sec dwellers don't want known, all the lies upon lies of how it is not worth it, bull, been there and loved it, especially the upgraded NPC's make it fun and challenging, the problem with low sec is low sec dwellers who **** everything within, but hey they put in the risk so no hate just my opinion.


dude come on why do you have to say that...

why make that stupid Salvos cry about lowsec even more?

Just Add Water
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#746 - 2017-04-03 18:03:23 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:

Not quite sure really What?

Gate camping is a legitimate play style. Honestly, being able to scan the other side of a gate without having to log into an alt would do wonders. If I have the information that there are campers on the other side of a gate, I can play accordingly. And gate campers still would have access to any negligent travelers who didn't bother to check what the other side of a gate looks like.

The only downside I see is that it makes player-run intel channels less necessary, but I think they'll still be used just for alerting people about what's going on in a particular region/constellation that they're in.

Not sure if that would solve it, but it might be worth considering without having to go to such extremes as shooting campers in PVP space.



Hmm. I kind of like that. some way of being able to peak through a gate and see who's on grid
Sivar Ahishatsu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#747 - 2017-04-13 05:04:41 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:

1.
You say this but please explain how making highsec bigger would make players less bored, that doesnt make sense, they will just get the same bored but in a bigger area.


It is not about making High Sec bigger, that is just a side-effect, it is about expanding available content to players. Players will have access to more resources and PVE missions or complexes and exploration and resulting industry and trade etc.

If we think that there will be much space, then make empire space smaller turn a bunch of systems to nullsec let the Conquest begin!!

Quote:
2.
it might push some of them but then some of them will just quite because the majority of people in lowsec do not like nullsec and you cant force that on people, its like me saying kick everyone out of highsec after 3 months because highsec is for new players not older players. im sure you bears wouldn't like that happening.


Actually I love this point. Because low sec people demand that high sec people "bears" (even call them in diminutive ways), adhere to the "established order"...their order..while when put in the same situation where now you have to adhere to nulsec order you don't like it. And you think of quiting.

Well, you just proved that High sec players quit the game because of the current setup. Because they think like you too, they dont like to play by your rules..just like you dont like to play by nulsec rules.

And I am glad you made this point because now we are getting somewhere!

Quote:
3.
Wrong again, pirates dont care because we all have alts to do stuff in highsec, we take pride in our -10.0 status.


Again, all about you. How about other players not like you? Why don't they have the right to have fun too according to their vision?

Quote:
4. really? new players come in and out of lowsec everyday, not everyone is scared, if you are too scrared to jump into lowsec then you probably wont last long in eve regardless


Yes new players come in low sec every day...they die in low sec every day too. I mean did you see many new players come in and just go about their day exploring in low sec, or mine some asteroids or some ice maybe?

The moment they jump in they are observed and scanned down and located and eliminated..because..."its fun".. LOL.

of course I go to low sec, but every time I do it is a battle, every time. And when I was newbie a battle to my expense..So I refuse to be your toy..so you can have "your fun"..I am here to have fun too. This is not only your game.

And there is nothing to be scared about, what should I be scared about? Losing my ship? Are you serious? ISK plentiful now days just have to buy some Plex and sell it and boom billions.

What I do not want to lose..is my time..entertaining you. Has nothing to do with being scared I actually like PvP..but I am not a criminal or a scoundrel..a PK..., I do not attack weaker players. I attack the gankers, in self defense or in defense of weaker players. Also I am acooperative player I like to build and share with others, not to deprive and destroy. That is my style of play.

The point is that nulsec is useless to my style of play, just takes up space and limits many new players fun.

Having said this, I would tend to respect your choice of fun as a player. I may not approve of you in game, consider you a criminal, but as a fellow player we stand in equality, and in reality you might be a cool person too. And I am not here to try and change your fun.

But I want you to realise reciprocity in that statement. Don't try to change my fun either.

Therefore, a more sensible solution here could be to leave low sec as is, so you can have fun, and in turn enhance high sec with a better overall experience (Pve , minerals explorations missions etc) to par levels as low sec. That way you can have fun there and I can have equal fun here.

And sometimes I may even pay you a visit for some real PvP in low sec :)
Tetsel
House Amamake
#748 - 2017-04-13 12:40:22 UTC
Improvement for LS:

1- Remove gategun on Oso gate in Amamake
2- Remove this tag4sec non-sense
3- Give "CONCORD like" bonus to all pirate ship, the lower the SS the better the bonus.
4- More Police SKIN, Megathron/Kronos are **** ship for patroling.
5- Double bounty output payment when killed pilot security status is below -5
6- Include piracy into FW, a pirate corp/ally (average ss below -5) can deny "sov" for all faction.

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#749 - 2017-04-14 13:25:19 UTC
Remove low sec and make it soverign high sec.
Empire is npc high, some of current low sec would go over to high, and the rest to be for high sec newer corps with limits on how much ground can be held.

High sec becomes 1.0 to 0.1 and concord responses are rebalanced around it.
Since under .5 would have longer response times and allow for small corps to hold a few systems it could be a nice turbulent system to help small corps learn how to fight wars and make alliances.
Anyone who owns sov null sec is excluded from being elligble to hold high sec.
Drops and such stay the same.

NPCs and drops and ore remains the same and players feel free-er to migrate out to the fringes of highsec and closer to null.
Rebalance ded sites and combat anoms so you get 4-10 in null and 1-6 in high sec but 6 is rare for high sec.

Right now it only feels like low sec is a barrier to prevent people from being able to go between high and null IMO. Never bothered with low.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#750 - 2017-04-14 13:33:33 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Remove low sec and make it soverign high sec.
Empire is npc high, some of current low sec would go over to high, and the rest to be for high sec newer corps with limits on how much ground can be held.

High sec becomes 1.0 to 0.1 and concord responses are rebalanced around it.
Since under .5 would have longer response times and allow for small corps to hold a few systems it could be a nice turbulent system to help small corps learn how to fight wars and make alliances.
Anyone who owns sov null sec is excluded from being elligble to hold high sec.
Drops and such stay the same.

NPCs and drops and ore remains the same and players feel free-er to migrate out to the fringes of highsec and closer to null.
Rebalance ded sites and combat anoms so you get 4-10 in null and 1-6 in high sec but 6 is rare for high sec.

Right now it only feels like low sec is a barrier to prevent people from being able to go between high and null IMO. Never bothered with low.


I disagree.

Having concord present in FW space eliminates fights. About half of the fights I get are with non-faction aligned pirates who are just looking for combat. I don't support eliminating that mechanic.

Sov in high-sec makes little sense to me either. What exactly would that mean (beside bragging rights)? How would you defend against a fleet looking to take your space if they are mobilizing in your system and you can't do anything because your war-dec hasn't gone through yet and you'll get concorded if you try to attack them as they stage their fleet on your doorstep? The combination of "high security" with "fighting for territory" just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

If it's policed by someone else (concord) I'm not sure how you could hold sov.