These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What is the real problem people have with High Sec?

Author
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#321 - 2012-10-19 16:05:06 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'm going to say something really crazy.

There needs to be more PvE in null sec, and it needs to pay better than high sec.

Corps should be able to "hire" agents that can be placed in stations in thier systems.


I like the idea of agents packing bags and moving. You know that same level 4 agent in Motsu, well turns out he/she ran out of work in that area and moved to another system that is one notch lower in security status. The more players farm these agents, the less they pay and after a certain point they move. Eventually going from high sec to low sec then to null sec. Once they are farmed out in null, they move back to a 1.0 system and the cycle starts over. Level 1's should never move, but still diminish of course.

The potential amount of income in the game would not increase, but just shift where it can be made. Just one of many things that can be done to make the ability to make ISK more dynamic with player population and such. Also would give players a reason to hate each other in high sec. Someone farming the agent you like, war dec em. Of course in low sec and null, the war dec is not necessary. But it would help drive more local conflict. Twisted
Michael Angelo Batio
Kenshu Corporation
#322 - 2012-10-19 16:06:52 UTC
As a new player, forgive me for lack of knowledge...

but for me I think the issue is not high sec, nor null sec or low sec specifically, it is the comparison that is the issue, the way they work in relation to each other, you could either nerf high sec, or buff low and null..

I think the second option may be the best option, as stated already, if people are earning their income in high sec then going to fight in nul, and mostly live in nulll, it means something some where is not right.

I do seem to see a trend among the whole 'eve is for pvp only' people. they hate any other form of possible enjoyment of the game it seems, which is wrong, yes eve is primarily pvp, but it is also a sandbox game.

That last point is CCP's biggest problem, it needs to remain a sandbox, and we still need high sec to be populated and not have everyone running off to null and low sec..

I think, even as a noobs perspective that this is an issue that will never go away, it will never truely be balanced to a point that everyone is happy

Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#323 - 2012-10-19 16:11:52 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'm going to say something really crazy.

There needs to be more PvE in null sec, and it needs to pay better than high sec.

Corps should be able to "hire" agents that can be placed in stations in thier systems.


I like the idea of agents packing bags and moving. You know that same level 4 agent in Motsu, well turns out he/she ran out of work in that area and moved to another system that is one notch lower in security status. The more players farm these agents, the less they pay and after a certain point they move. Eventually going from high sec to low sec then to null sec. Once they are farmed out in null, they move back to a 1.0 system and the cycle starts over. Level 1's should never move, but still diminish of course.

The potential amount of income in the game would not increase, but just shift where it can be made. Just one of many things that can be done to make the ability to make ISK more dynamic with player population and such. Also would give players a reason to hate each other in high sec. Someone farming the agent you like, war dec em. Of course in low sec and null, the war dec is not necessary. But it would help drive more local conflict. Twisted

I wouldn't mind seeing this added as a bridging system to move people to low and null.

Keep what's already there as far as mission agents, and make this a new kind of agent that pays better initially than the other mission agents.

The only problem I could see is that as the mission is farmed and the payout gets lower, people will likely reach a point were they simply stop doing the missions as they aren't paying well enough. It could either be structured so that the agent moves when the payout point reaches around about what a level 4 in high sec pays, or have the agent move after a period of time if no one is utilizing him.


I'm all for "dynamic" content that changes, even in small ways.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#324 - 2012-10-19 16:12:21 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I'm going to say something really crazy.

There needs to be more PvE in null sec, and it needs to pay better than high sec.

Corps should be able to "hire" agents that can be placed in stations in thier systems.


I like the idea of agents packing bags and moving. You know that same level 4 agent in Motsu, well turns out he/she ran out of work in that area and moved to another system that is one notch lower in security status. The more players farm these agents, the less they pay and after a certain point they move. Eventually going from high sec to low sec then to null sec. Once they are farmed out in null, they move back to a 1.0 system and the cycle starts over. Level 1's should never move, but still diminish of course.

The potential amount of income in the game would not increase, but just shift where it can be made. Just one of many things that can be done to make the ability to make ISK more dynamic with player population and such. Also would give players a reason to hate each other in high sec. Someone farming the agent you like, war dec em. Of course in low sec and null, the war dec is not necessary. But it would help drive more local conflict. Twisted


I would do it slightly differently...say, have them start at a base rate of pay, which would slowly go up as they waited for someone to take their missions. After some number of granted missions, say randomly 5-10, they pack up bags and move to a random new system, slightly favoring systems that currently have less agents, so that if let's say lowsec agents were being done the least, lowsec would have the most agents but not ALL of them. It's a pretty simple concept, just makes agent more like sites, but I think it would be a huge improvement. Realistically, could leave level 1-3 missions as they are now, it's just the level 4's and 5's that would really benefit from this idea. I don't think there needs to be level 2 missions stagnating in deep nullsec.
Myfanwy Heimdal
Heimdal Freight and Manufacture Inc
#325 - 2012-10-19 16:23:43 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Davis TetrisKing wrote:


I kind of wish miners had an option to mine in Low sec with some kind of mechanic to give them a chance. I don't think I've ever seen anyone trying to mine in Low.



Trust me....it's not even worth bothering an attempt. It will not go well.



Trust me.... It didn't;

Pam:  I wonder what my name means in Welsh?Nessa: Why?

Darth Khasei
Wavestar Business Ventures Inc.
#326 - 2012-10-19 16:29:04 UTC
Respect. Cool

Wow...this is kind of pathetic in a way. I mean really nobody should be trying to control how "anyone" in the game decides to play the game.

The fact is, that 99% of the proposed player generated fixes are nothing more than individuals trying to dictate how others should play this sandbox game. While not unexpected is pretty petty and useless in the end as CCP does not share these fringe type views.

CCP may do some things to add incentives for people to do other things outside their chosen profession, they don't want to dictate and force the players into this or that activity or this or that section in EVE. It is perfectly legitimate to NEVER go into low/nul/WH space, traveling from region to region selling the goods of WAR or Industry etc....

Someone has to provide those goods or "ALL" of the activities in EVE would cease.

There is value in every single EVE player...it is just a shame most here posting have no real connection to the reality of what EVE is truly about.
Tao Dolcino
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2012-10-19 16:31:58 UTC
Dynamic content (like the moving agents example) would be great, and not only for null sec !
I also love the idea to make pve ennemies more pvp-like (thank you Esteban Dragonovic for the idea), it would fit perfectly with less difference between pvp fits and pve fits, allowing people to do other activies in low/null sec while still having a chance to survive, or at least to give twice to think to the gankers before they attack.
I'd also like to thank our host Davis TetrisKing for his way to organise such an interesting debate without that it turn completly Blink into a troll fest. I've read here some good input from both "sides", and i think that the community can become better only if people learn the point of view of different players, with different styles and experiences, instead of pathetically throwing at each other worthless insults and poorly choosen words of disdain.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#328 - 2012-10-19 16:31:59 UTC
High Seccers, Miners and Industrialists please stop posting in these threads and perpetuating the insanity that these threads will ever have a different outcome.

Extremists on BOTH sides: A POX ON YOU.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#329 - 2012-10-19 17:00:38 UTC
The more miners and industrialists listen, the more they realize that my proposed changes benefit them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#330 - 2012-10-19 17:01:33 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Extremists on BOTH sides: A POX ON YOU.
Stop being one then. I'd ask you to stop being insane as well, but that won't really work, now will it?
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#331 - 2012-10-19 17:14:56 UTC
Darth Khasei wrote:
Respect. Cool

Wow...this is kind of pathetic in a way. I mean really nobody should be trying to control how "anyone" in the game decides to play the game.



This is a logical contradiction, this post itself is trying to prevent people from trying to control how 'anyone" in the game decides to play the game, by advocating restricting people from deciding to play the game with the purpose of controlling how others play the game.
Darth Khasei
Wavestar Business Ventures Inc.
#332 - 2012-10-19 17:39:27 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
This is a logical contradiction, this post itself is trying to prevent people from trying to control how 'anyone" in the game decides to play the game, by advocating restricting people from deciding to play the game with the purpose of controlling how others play the game.


Respect. Cool

No you seem have some kind of misunderstanding. That part of the post was commentary on how petty and pathetic it is for folks to try to control each others in game playstyle.

It was not an attempted by me to control whether or not they can try this useless practice as that is only determined by each individual not me. However, it makes the attempt no less petty and pathetic which is nothing more than my commentary on this forum practice.

Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#333 - 2012-10-19 17:43:15 UTC
Darth Khasei wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
This is a logical contradiction, this post itself is trying to prevent people from trying to control how 'anyone" in the game decides to play the game, by advocating restricting people from deciding to play the game with the purpose of controlling how others play the game.


Respect. Cool

No you seem have some kind of misunderstanding. That part of the post was commentary on how petty and pathetic it is for folks to try to control each others in game playstyle.

It was not an attempted by me to control whether or not they can try this useless practice as that is only determined by each individual not me. However, it makes the attempt no less petty and pathetic which is nothing more than my commentary on this forum practice.



Commentary, lacking any kind of belief on your part that anyone should care about or be affected by your words, in a way that could possibly lead to action, actions which inevitably affect others? Ok, if you're telling everyone not to care about your ideas...then there's a good chance that no one will. I certainly won't.

Cheers.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#334 - 2012-10-19 18:06:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Extremists on BOTH sides: A POX ON YOU.
Stop being one then. I'd ask you to stop being insane as well, but that won't really work, now will it?

Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#335 - 2012-10-19 18:09:06 UTC
Doesn't seem to be working well for you, Darth

you should go run some nullsec or lowsec incursions if the reward for hisec payout isn't to your liking
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2012-10-19 18:26:02 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
A lot of GD at the moment seems to be unhappy about people living in High Sec almost primarily, so I want to legitimately ask what the biggest issues those players have with allowing other players to live in a mostly risk-free environment.

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


I am legitimately interested in both what the perceived problems are with High-Sec and further what changes such a discussion could lead to in the future.


Basically the problem is highsec has had a trend of ever decreasing risk and ever increasing reward which has screwed up the entire system. To your questions:

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Yes the reward is too high in highsec for its risk. When you can make basically the same amount as I do out in nullsec in highsec then there is a problem. Highsec should be intrinsically lower reward than nullsec.

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?


The ability to AFK mine is an example of the ever decreasing risk in highsec.

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

I don't WH so I can't say any more than I think they are okay. Fixing risk : reward for the various sec areas won't force anyone to leave highsec but it will allow those who were forced into highsec, by the over abundance of reward and lack of risk, to return to where they lived.

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?


Nope, in fact they should allow us to blow up stations so we can harm annoying people who don't undock.

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


Yes, industry is a good example of this. Any industry that can be done in highsec is better than when done in the other sec status areas. It is a bad thing because it forces players to live in highsec, it removes the players choice of how much to risk for how much reward. Its pretty much the same reason the barge EHP (aside from skiff/procuror) was bad. It took away the players choice of risking a lot (full yield) for a lot of reward or risking little (full tank) for little reward.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Connaght Badasaz
Lewis and Clark Inc.
#337 - 2012-10-19 18:40:06 UTC
If you were to do a search, you might find there are a metric butt-ton of posts outlining how null is empty. To an extent that is true. You can literally fly around for hours and not see another soul.

The counter point is, it's all owned by someone, or the areas around an unclaimed system is owned. So the reality is, yeah, you can go to an empty system and set up shop, and sooner or later you will be ejected.

It's not a matter of strength or determination; if you squat on mega alliance space, they will eject you.

That said, you can find a corp or an alliance to move to. Some are better than others. You can do the same things in null or low as you can in hi.

And NOT get killed. That's right, you can move to 0.0 and mine, rat, buy/sell in complete and utter safety.

True story.

I don't have a problem with people living anywhere in the game, I myself have hung around in all of it. My preference has always been null.

I do have a problem with people, of any ken, that wants to change the game to their favor even if affects all others negatively.

Eve is what it is. You can mission in the officer fit Nightmare. Go ahead, all you want. When it gets popped, it is disingenuous to cry about it or want total safety. You knew this when you made the character, when you became a missioner, and when you undocked. But the choice was made, and the result of the choice, good or bad was applied.

No-one complains when they clear belt after belt, mission after mission, but the tears flow the moment that is interrupted.

That is my problem with Hi-sec.

Take arrows in the forehead, never the back

Reachok
Doomheim
#338 - 2012-10-19 18:51:51 UTC
Once again another "let's fix hi sec by making everyone go to low sec/0.0" post. I'm not 100% sure, only CCP knows the actual numbers but I'd guess that better than 60% of Eve's subs live in high sec.

So yeah, it makes sense to some people to force all of us "carebears" into low sec or 0.0.

It may not make business sense however.

The bad guys went the other way, seriously....

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2012-10-19 18:58:29 UTC
Reachok wrote:
Once again another "let's fix hi sec by making everyone go to low sec/0.0" post. I'm not 100% sure, only CCP knows the actual numbers but I'd guess that better than 60% of Eve's subs live in high sec.

A large portion of "eve's subs" who "live in hisec" are nullsec alts.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Rogue Drone Recovery Syndicate
#340 - 2012-10-19 19:11:26 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Extremists on BOTH sides: A POX ON YOU.
Stop being one then. I'd ask you to stop being insane as well, but that won't really work, now will it?

Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up.



So what your saying is. you would like to see a war. to see who is more superior Highsec whiners, or Null Sec bears.

or would it turn into a highsec'rs sit in their stations all day and smack talk because their powerless to grow some.