These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Does lowsec need a buff?

Author
DrunkenNinja
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
#1 - 2012-11-29 10:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: DrunkenNinja
Hi guys, do you think lowsec deserves some attention in the coming patches?

What I mean by this is: Are there really enough people profiting from lowsec and dangerous activities in general?

This isn't just pirates fighting pirates in lowsec—it's miners, missioners, etc who venture out into lowsec space for higher risk but increased reward.

So if they manage to make it out of lowsec without getting blown up, they should gain more than a player who stays totally safe in hisec.

However, hisec would still be extremely profitable due to the risks of low sec space.

I raise these points now because lots of people I talk to in game say things like "Lol mining or missioning in lowsec is pointless.", and lowsec systems in general are far less populated than hisec ones.

Is this really the kind of environment we desire in EVE?
Isn't one of EVE slogans "Dare to be bold."?
Wouldn't increasing the profitability of low security space encourage boldness?

Edit— Stumbled onto this article on massively.com: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/05/13/eve-evolved-risk-vs-reward-in-lowsec/
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-11-29 10:20:24 UTC
some people say: yes
other (and i trust them) say: nope, increased profits won't make low-sec more populated.

And about "dare to be bold". Eve gives you a choices. It's up to you to choose something. Your choice - low sec. That's ok. My choice for nearest time - high sec (got bored by 0.0 sec). Noone forces us to choose one option or another. Then why rewarding one of them?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

DrunkenNinja
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
#3 - 2012-11-29 10:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: DrunkenNinja
March rabbit wrote:
some people say: yes
other (and i trust them) say: nope, increased profits won't make low-sec more populated.

And about "dare to be bold". Eve gives you a choices. It's up to you to choose something. Your choice - low sec. That's ok. My choice for nearest time - high sec (got bored by 0.0 sec). Noone forces us to choose one option or another. Then why rewarding one of them?



I'd say it's pretty darn likely that increased profits WOULD make lowsec more populated, and more people would fight over these resources—which I would find fun.

I'm not saying nerf your ability to play it safe and make a steady ISK income.
Just allow players to take greater risks for greater rewards.
Kehro Urgus
Dark Nebula Academy
O X I D E
#4 - 2012-11-29 10:24:44 UTC
Low sec would be much more popular if it had concord. Smile

Yeeee! 

Luke Visteen
#5 - 2012-11-29 10:37:11 UTC
there would be no low-sec if CONCORD was to be deployed there lol.

low-sec = high-sec without CONCORD.

.

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-11-29 10:42:47 UTC
DrunkenNinja wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
some people say: yes
other (and i trust them) say: nope, increased profits won't make low-sec more populated.

And about "dare to be bold". Eve gives you a choices. It's up to you to choose something. Your choice - low sec. That's ok. My choice for nearest time - high sec (got bored by 0.0 sec). Noone forces us to choose one option or another. Then why rewarding one of them?



I'd say it's pretty darn likely that increased profits WOULD make lowsec more populated, and more people would fight over these resources—which I would find fun.

0.0 sec shows: rich resources not always provoke conflict. Take a look to moons income.
However i don't want to argue here because this question has like 100+ threads in this forum. Let's not start another one.

DrunkenNinja wrote:

I'm not saying nerf your ability to play it safe and make a steady ISK income.
Just allow players to take greater risks for greater rewards.

Boosting one area -> more ISK into game -> prices for everything growing == nerf for all other areas

And low-sec is already more rewarding than high-sec.

Kehro Urgus wrote:
Low sec would be much more popular if it had concord. Smile

It's more likely Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Kalen Pavle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-11-29 10:47:26 UTC
Just allow people to claim sov in lowsec already. Maybe throw in some **** about a war with the empire factions for it. Add some sort of new resources for some sort of new profession that requires sov to access.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-11-29 10:49:53 UTC
Kehro Urgus wrote:
Low sec would be much more popular if it had concord. Smile


It would also be more popular if it didnt have sentry guns.

I consider lowsec as null without any profitable stuff but where I can travel more safely without having to worry about fast tacklers.

Lowsec can be fun if youre in FW, but other than that most pvp is of the stupid sort (like station games etc that happen because of the sentry guns. )

And there is always the chance for a hotdrop á la null if you think you can actually do something important in there. Restrictions just kill lowsec. And it still doesnt have good sites etc. At least in null you can freely engage in a duel or smallgang fight at gates without worrying about sentries.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

DrunkenNinja
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
#9 - 2012-11-29 10:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: DrunkenNinja
DrunkenNinja wrote:

I'm not saying nerf your ability to play it safe and make a steady ISK income.
Just allow players to take greater risks for greater rewards.

You wrote:

Boosting one area -> more ISK into game -> prices for everything growing == nerf for all other areas

And low-sec is already more rewarding than high-sec.


Assuming you're right, are you really saying lowsec DOESN'T need a buff, and the the risks aren't VASTLY disproportionate to the rewards?
If hi-sec and low-sec risk vs reward was balanced, why is the population in lowsec so low? Because it isn't balanced.
Alara IonStorm
#10 - 2012-11-29 10:55:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
The buff I want for low sec.

Pirate PvE.

Right now non industrially the way to earn cash is to shoot Pirate Faction Rats with a Concord Bounty. Instead I would like to see targets that are not other Pirates. Targets for Pirates in which you lose Sec Status for Attacking.

The idea.

* Non Combat NPC Spawns.
* The locations: Gates, Planets, Stations, Belts, Anomalies, Scan Sites.
* The challenge: NPC Mercenary / Security Defenders spawning on a chance based system which scales up in size and occurrence by target value.
* Small flat Sec Status Loss for participating at all, not by target.
* Rewards: Dropped goods that can be sold on the market, possibly some sold to NPC's. Some of it might be illegal.

Defense Attributes.

* Target Non Combat Ship Warps Away and de-spawns if not Pointed.
* Attack Ships Warp in after Aggro on Target Non Combat Ship.
* Attack Ships: MWD, Warp Scramble, Web, Nuet, EWAR, Multiple Dmg Types, Logi and Switch Targets.
* Attack Ships Warp Away and despawn in low Hull if not Scrambled. New ships take their place after a short time.
* Great AI and PvP Tactics
* Chance Based on how many show up.
* Sentry Guns do not interfere with this on a gate or station but you can be attacked as Pirate for 15min without Gun interference even if you are + Sec Status.

The Targets by Value.

* Shuttles / Luxury Yachts / Exploration Frigates / Zephyrs / ORE Frigates 5000 - 10k HP / 10-100m3 Cargo
- Solo or a couple cheapy ships.
- Newbie Rewards.
- Low Chance of Defender Ship.

* Haulers / Primae's / Noctis / Barges 30-50k HP / 500-2000m3 Cargo:
- Solo in a Bigger Ships or with a few friends depending on spawn size.
- Good Rewards for a one to a few people.
- High Chance of Defender Fleet.

* Transport Ships / Exhumers 50-75k HP 1000-4000m3 Cargo
- Gang Sized Targets.
- Good Rewards for a Gang.
- Defense Fleet will show in various sizes.

* Freighters / Orca 200k HP 15000-50000m3 Cargo
- 10-25 Man Fleet Required.
- Great Rewards for a Fleet.
- It's a Trap!... Really Big Defense Fleet.

Basically they are random appearances of Pirate worthy targets that when attacked spawn a fleet of Incursion / Sleeper Style Mercenary Ships to defend them and if you win you can yank the cargo. The less people you bring the more to go around but the more risk of being Scrammed and offed, the more the less rewards to split. Sometimes it is a roll of the dice whether to attack and you have to decide if target of said value is worth the risk or if you want to keep walking.

Edit: Made a F&I Thread cause I really do like this idea and typed it all out.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2012-11-29 10:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Lowsec doesn't need a buff, it needs a complete re-imagining. Right now it's a strange hybrid between the worst aspects of highsec and the worst aspects of nullsec without any of the benefits of either. You give up all of the safeties of highsec , and yet PVP comes with sec status hits and restrictions on bubbles, and PVE just doesn't reward as well as null. About the only thing it has going for it is Faction Warfare.

Of all the tasks CCP has ahead of them, finding a true purpose for lowsec is probably their hardest one.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#12 - 2012-11-29 10:59:06 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:
Just allow people to claim sov in lowsec already. Maybe throw in some **** about a war with the empire factions for it. Add some sort of new resources for some sort of new profession that requires sov to access.


Wouldn't losec sov just lead to locking others out of those areas once the initial land rush was over?

What would be better in my mind would be more gate links between high and low - more gates would mean less likelihood of running into the entry system gate camps that put a lot of players off attempting access to losec after their first attempts.
Mirima Thurander
#13 - 2012-11-29 11:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Null and low are fine. We could do with better FUN content but less liquid ISK injection.


Truly high sec needs hit with a freaking nurf CANON.
If u live in high sec 100% of the time you don't truly need to make over 200 to 300 million a WEEK.

But CCP to freaking slow about fixing things now everyone thinks there entitled to 500m + a day in high sec " or they will quit ".

If your playing eve to pay for eve news flash you now have a 2nd job.





I had a big post then thought why bother ccps not going to fix it.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#14 - 2012-11-29 11:07:31 UTC
DrunkenNinja wrote:
If hi-sec and low-sec risk vs reward was balanced, why is the population in lowsec so low? Because it isn't balanced.

It's got nothing to do with rewards, it's purely about players being risk averse. The only way to make risk averse players want to go into low sec is to give them ridiculously high rewards which make the risk irrelevant.
Kurt Saken
Star Cluster Wanderer
#15 - 2012-11-29 11:09:10 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:


If your playing eve to pay for eve news flash you now have a 2nd job.



This quote is full of win.

The best part is that many people here are so proud of having a second and tedious job. Hilarious.
DrunkenNinja
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
#16 - 2012-11-29 11:11:30 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
DrunkenNinja wrote:
If hi-sec and low-sec risk vs reward was balanced, why is the population in lowsec so low? Because it isn't balanced.

It's got nothing to do with rewards, it's purely about players being risk averse. The only way to make risk averse players want to go into low sec is to give them ridiculously high rewards which make the risk irrelevant.


No it isn't.
Players are "risk adverse" in EVE because there's no real incentive to take the risks.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#17 - 2012-11-29 11:15:13 UTC
You realise you just said exactly the same thing I just said, right? Only the way I said it holds more truth.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2012-11-29 11:15:17 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
DrunkenNinja wrote:
If hi-sec and low-sec risk vs reward was balanced, why is the population in lowsec so low? Because it isn't balanced.

It's got nothing to do with rewards, it's purely about players being risk averse. The only way to make risk averse players want to go into low sec is to give them ridiculously high rewards which make the risk irrelevant.


It's not even that - there's plenty of risk averse people, it's just that if they're going to leave the cradle of highsec, they're way better off skipping lowsec entirely and either going to NPC null or trying to join a sov alliance. They'll have better rewards if they're PvE types, and if they're PvP players, they get to do their thing without being locked out of a large portion of the game because of it.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

TharOkha
0asis Group
#19 - 2012-11-29 11:15:54 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
Lowsec does not need a buff. It needs reasonable dwellers
DrunkenNinja
Forcas armadas
DARKNESS.
#20 - 2012-11-29 11:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: DrunkenNinja
Riot Girl wrote:
You realise you just said exactly the same thing I just said, right? Only the way I said it holds more truth.


Fact of the matter is though, young males are not risk averse, and they're the major target audience for EVE whether you like it or not—so it seems much more likely that the system simply does not encourage risk taking.
123Next pageLast page