These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Awful Low Sec Idea that you might want to read
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kuro Bon
Test Corp 123
#101 - 2012-11-17 06:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuro Bon
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I am drawing from the base concept that there is considerable interest in seeing PvE pilots venture out of high sec.
I am trying to answer the question: What do these players need to see and believe in order to be willing (to mission in low-sec)?


Where do you get that idea? From the forums, I feel like the interest is from gankers who are trying to lure more targets, not from PVE pilots interested in low-sec.

My answer to your willingness question is .. "to (generally) not get ganked", like in high-sec. Which is totally fine for PVE missions.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
That being said, for the PvE experience to exist (in low sec), the barrier to ganking those on missions needs to be higher than it is in null sec.


I think highsec is a good enough "safe space for missions". If anything, they should take out low-sec PVE missions entirely. It's just perpetuating the mis-directed notion that you can somehow lure the mission-achiever players into low-sec to be ganked.

I'm personally more interested in some "structured achiever pvp" missions,. where two different 3-5 person gangs are invited to the same deadspace room for some bounded-fleet-size PVP. At least this would add something that EVE currently doesn't have.

Protip: 100M ISK per hour is about $3US an hour.
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#102 - 2012-11-19 16:50:44 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ok, I saw two posts.

One, remarkably nonconstructive by Mr Jack. I believe this was a hue and cry of change being bad, on likely any level.

Nikon56, you do a fair job of defending the way things are now. I acknowledge your point, but I must respond that this idea thread is addressing a frequent request to lure PvE pilots into low from high security space.

If you don't share this interest, I can accept that. Not everyone wants to see this, or change the game to encourage it.



Exactly this.

I understand that the things myself and Nikk are talking about will most likely never be implemented due to the absolutely sweeping changes that would have to be made to make it work, and many probably would not want it anyway. However, the ideas we are pitching around, are with the sole idea of giving a reason for players to progress through the game from High Sec / Low Sec / 0.0 or WH, and in my case, also giving reasons for pve careers to take the chance and profit outside of Empire space as well.

It is the features and Ideas forum after all. Lol


this

i don't respond here just to say i don't want it, i'm exposing WHY i think this is not a good idea, so that everyone reading this post will be able to understand the reasons behind each thought.

and again, it is perfectly possible for anyone to live in highsec, and run missions in lowsec, and safely.

this require to be carefull and use adapted means, of course (no, going there with a 5B officier machariel is NOT a good idea, unless i'm the one camping of course Twisted)

Quote:
I'm personally more interested in some "structured achiever pvp" missions,. where two different 3-5 person gangs are invited to the same deadspace room for some bounded-fleet-size PVP. At least this would add something that EVE currently doesn't have.


why not, but this will not solve things, the ppl ganking the one on the site will still be able to bring adapted fleet comp to counter, when you live in low, you know what happen in realtime several jumps around you, sometime region-wide.

so actually i see two solution to run lowsec solo


-1 be smart and stealth / fast
-2 be friend with the residents, so you will only have to care about ppl passing by (wich, 80% of the time, is not hunter cause they'r indy / alts / scouts etc....)




just posting to say "NO, NEVER, GO DIE IN TERRIBLE FIRE" is pointless

but still, go die in terrible fire Pirate
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#103 - 2012-11-19 17:58:45 UTC
The great thing about kicking around ideas, even if the goal admittedly may never be achieved, is that sometimes you discover an idea that can be really great for a different reason.

I have no illusions that a lot of the PvP minded, (asking for PvE pilots to be lured out), were doing so in order to pad their own kill board standings.

The fact that discussion has pretty much isolated PvE as being at odds with certain PvP interests is not really surprising.

We are still coming up with good ideas, and who knows, we might stumble upon the answer and surprise everyone!

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#104 - 2012-11-19 18:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
Of course, the fundamental tension between the PvE pilots wanting to maximize their fun (usually measured by isk/standing/LP) versus the PvP pilots after the sweetest kills is not one that can be optimised to everyone's satisfaction as long as the PvE pilots pay the price for the PvP pilot's joy.

But to change that part of the equation would kick a fundamental pillar of EvE's design under the bus, so it's really more a matter of tweaking rewards and risks to maximize the interface between PvE and PvP without driving anyone away.

Perhaps tweaking rewards for lowsec missions in such a way that the inevitable losses *feel* more recoverable (whatever the actuality).
-- inspiration hits--
Black market modules.

Modules that only spawn in lowsec and nullsec are *illegal* in highsec.
No super-pimp machariels running full officer fits doing missions out of highsec L4 mission hubs, because they'll *always* have a hostile escort above and beyond the mission.

This allows for a higher spawn rate of those modules without unbalancing highsec payouts, so the isk price goes down. Some of the lower meta modules could even be awarded directly as mission rewards.

This gives the mission runners a reason to break out of the highsec nursery, opens up the possibility of lowsec and NPC nullsec trade hubs (of necessity as you would not be able to trade the "good stuff" in Jita), and generally broadens the game.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#105 - 2012-11-19 20:14:15 UTC
Just had a thought.

This seems crazy for a PvP pilot, but for a PvE pilot facing PvP obstacles, not really.

Mission insurance.

While enroute to and from a mission, and during the operation of said mission, all losses due to player caused interference will be fully restored.
(Fancy translation: They give you back your ship and modules and rigs)
Ammunition you undocked with will be included, in the amount remaining at the time of the incident.

Restrictions:
***Must adhere to flight path relating to mission once activating insurance. You don't need to autopilot, but you must follow the highlighted gates and warp to mission site without deviation or delay. (It gets plugged in like an autopilot route)
***To prevent player abuse during missions, accel gates will be deactivated to all ships not participating in the mission. Only the mission runner and fleeted vessels will have the authorization codes to use them. Slow boating gankers may still try their luck.
(Reason: If you are losing a combat mission, no having a friend kill you just so you get the policy reward instead.)
***Insured vessel being replaced will spawn in the outpost where the mission was accepted, rigs modules and ammo will be in the items inventory. Try not to undock in a bare hull.

NOTE: Why are slow boaters still permitted within the mission space?
Because the friends of the pilot in question won't have the time to reach the location in time to interfere, and abuse from them is the concern.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#106 - 2012-11-20 09:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Of course, the fundamental tension between the PvE pilots wanting to maximize their fun (usually measured by isk/standing/LP) versus the PvP pilots after the sweetest kills is not one that can be optimised to everyone's satisfaction as long as the PvE pilots pay the price for the PvP pilot's joy.

But to change that part of the equation would kick a fundamental pillar of EvE's design under the bus, so it's really more a matter of tweaking rewards and risks to maximize the interface between PvE and PvP without driving anyone away.

Perhaps tweaking rewards for lowsec missions in such a way that the inevitable losses *feel* more recoverable (whatever the actuality).
-- inspiration hits--
Black market modules.

Modules that only spawn in lowsec and nullsec are *illegal* in highsec.
No super-pimp machariels running full officer fits doing missions out of highsec L4 mission hubs, because they'll *always* have a hostile escort above and beyond the mission.

This allows for a higher spawn rate of those modules without unbalancing highsec payouts, so the isk price goes down. Some of the lower meta modules could even be awarded directly as mission rewards.

This gives the mission runners a reason to break out of the highsec nursery, opens up the possibility of lowsec and NPC nullsec trade hubs (of necessity as you would not be able to trade the "good stuff" in Jita), and generally broadens the game.

this might be probably something to think about, but "banning" some ships from high might be too much
Quote:

Restrictions:
***Must adhere to flight path relating to mission once activating insurance. You don't need to autopilot, but you must follow the highlighted gates and warp to mission site without deviation or delay. (It gets plugged in like an autopilot route)
***To prevent player abuse during missions, accel gates will be deactivated to all ships not participating in the mission. Only the mission runner and fleeted vessels will have the authorization codes to use them. Slow boating gankers may still try their luck.


this make most ppl ungankable, it's OP,most of the missions / sites have gates.

regarding the reimbursment, you have the insurance, it covers what it covers, deal with it

this, my friend, would be as safee as higsec: not gankable in your mission, gankable during the way there, but who cares, my 5 B rattlesnacke will be fully covered anyway....

this is not how CCP thinks lowsec and losses related to it, player shall feel the loss.

i mean, then refund ALL ship at 100%, i'll blow a full officer vindi anytime
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#107 - 2012-11-20 15:15:38 UTC
Try to remember this base fact:
Enjoying EVE relies on sustainable game play.

PvP pilots follow this faithfully, supposedly only risking ships they can afford to lose in the next fight.

PvE pilots, for mission runners very often, need to fly ships that cannot be so easily replaced. This is acceptable, as missions normally give the pilot opportunity to preserve the ship, even if repair expenses do seem high.

We are discussing what would be needed to bring these PvE pilots over into areas where PvP risks would currently prohibit their play style.

nikon56 wrote:
this make most ppl ungankable, it's OP,most of the missions / sites have gates.

regarding the reimbursment, you have the insurance, it covers what it covers, deal with it

this, my friend, would be as safee as higsec: not gankable in your mission, gankable during the way there, but who cares, my 5 B rattlesnacke will be fully covered anyway....

this is not how CCP thinks lowsec and losses related to it, player shall feel the loss.

i mean, then refund ALL ship at 100%, i'll blow a full officer vindi anytime


That existing reimbursement figure is based off of expectation of deliberate PvP. This is because PvP pilots claim to fly ships that fall into the category of "acceptable loss".
PvE pilots, if they are serious about mission running, frequently fly ships that far exceed the definition of "acceptable loss", so they naturally avoid PvP as a foolish risk.
Common sense, not risking what you cannot afford to lose.

About my Mission Insurance system described two posts above:
Ungankable? That makes no sense, as at no point does the PvE pilot become immune to damage, or protect any looted items they have in their cargo.
Add to this the cost of the policy, and the fact that it expires like all current insurance with loss of ship. That new ship will cost ISK to insure all over again.
Still think this is loss free to the PvE player? Keep in mind, it is their perception that decides if they enter lowsec.

For drops: Anything besides original ammo in the cargo hold is either dropped or destroyed. Loot for the ganker, probably higher if they catch a returning runner instead of one going to the mission.

The Ganker doesn't get PvE ship based loot. The whole point is to make PvE losses caused by PvP to be manageable.
A PvP pilot will still get mission loot, if any survives.
The PvE pilot will still be out mission items, and possibly time if an item was required for completion.

Try to keep in mind, the low sec rewards are not worth losing a mission grade PvE ship.
The PvE pilots are willing to risk up to a point, and replacing a mission boat sets them back a lot farther than the PvP pilot losing the ship they tried ganking with, in too many cases.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#108 - 2012-11-20 15:44:39 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Try to remember this base fact:
Enjoying EVE relies on sustainable game play.

PvP pilots follow this faithfully, supposedly only risking ships they can afford to lose in the next fight.

PvE pilots, for mission runners very often, need to fly ships that cannot be so easily replaced. This is acceptable, as missions normally give the pilot opportunity to preserve the ship, even if repair expenses do seem high.

We are discussing what would be needed to bring these PvE pilots over into areas where PvP risks would currently prohibit their play style.

nikon56 wrote:
this make most ppl ungankable, it's OP,most of the missions / sites have gates.

regarding the reimbursment, you have the insurance, it covers what it covers, deal with it

this, my friend, would be as safee as higsec: not gankable in your mission, gankable during the way there, but who cares, my 5 B rattlesnacke will be fully covered anyway....

this is not how CCP thinks lowsec and losses related to it, player shall feel the loss.

i mean, then refund ALL ship at 100%, i'll blow a full officer vindi anytime


That existing reimbursement figure is based off of expectation of deliberate PvP. This is because PvP pilots claim to fly ships that fall into the category of "acceptable loss".
PvE pilots, if they are serious about mission running, frequently fly ships that far exceed the definition of "acceptable loss", so they naturally avoid PvP as a foolish risk.
Common sense, not risking what you cannot afford to lose.

About my Mission Insurance system described two posts above:
Ungankable? That makes no sense, as at no point does the PvE pilot become immune to damage, or protect any looted items they have in their cargo.
Add to this the cost of the policy, and the fact that it expires like all current insurance with loss of ship. That new ship will cost ISK to insure all over again.
Still think this is loss free to the PvE player? Keep in mind, it is their perception that decides if they enter lowsec.

For drops: Anything besides original ammo in the cargo hold is either dropped or destroyed. Loot for the ganker, probably higher if they catch a returning runner instead of one going to the mission.

The Ganker doesn't get PvE ship based loot. The whole point is to make PvE losses caused by PvP to be manageable.
A PvP pilot will still get mission loot, if any survives.
The PvE pilot will still be out mission items, and possibly time if an item was required for completion.

Try to keep in mind, the low sec rewards are not worth losing a mission grade PvE ship.
The PvE pilots are willing to risk up to a point, and replacing a mission boat sets them back a lot farther than the PvP pilot losing the ship they tried ganking with, in too many cases.


well you said the access gate would unlock only to the mission runner and he's fleetmate.

this make them ungankable on the site, because when you scan someone running a site / mission involving gates, you will warp to the first gate (even if he's in the 3rd room etc...), then you will not be able to activate it, so they are ungankable.

if lowsec reward is not worth loosing a PVE ship, then don't go there.

plus any lvl4 mission can be runned using a T1 BS no problem, not even the need of a pirate / navy one (i solo run world collide in a T2 fitted Maelstrom or dominix in 0.2 system with no problem, so any player with enought skill to do LVL4 can do it)

so if you cannot afford to replace a 300M ship, then well.... stop doing anything, because at PVE, you might at least do 100M / hour minimum (plus the insurance will refund you at about 200M for it, so you lost 100M + about 15-20M for the fitting)

at the moment you undock your ship, you might loose it.

even in highsec, many things can happen, user mistake, crazy gankers, flip canners etc.....
you undock it, you might loose it, it's just more probable in lowsec, and even more in null.

lowsec will already be nerfed with winter update, because now even logi will not be able to jump if they remoted within the 60 sec. window (and they cannot stop remoting at gates because of gate guns), so it's not possible anymore to move a fleet with logi to follow a fight, and just this little thing is a BIG nerf & issue to lowsec, so big change as you are proposing here will just kill it, all that so the carebears can do an extra millions / mission.....

think about it, because by reading your proposal, i come to think that you have no idea how lowsec is working, you have just the "carebear" sight of it, and trust me, it's incomplete at 90%

as i stated before, you really don't want lowsec alliances to be pissed of at highsec, they are way more powerfull that you might think, and could really well bring big mess in high, especially in missions hub, they rely way less in capitals than null alliances, meaning they can strike full power in high with no problem at all, plus null would probably join as well, because they have big indirect interest in lowsec too
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#109 - 2012-11-20 15:59:20 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Black market modules.

Modules that only spawn in lowsec and nullsec are *illegal* in highsec.
No super-pimp machariels running full officer fits doing missions out of highsec L4 mission hubs, because they'll *always* have a hostile escort above and beyond the mission.

This allows for a higher spawn rate of those modules without unbalancing highsec payouts, so the isk price goes down. Some of the lower meta modules could even be awarded directly as mission rewards.

This gives the mission runners a reason to break out of the highsec nursery, opens up the possibility of lowsec and NPC nullsec trade hubs (of necessity as you would not be able to trade the "good stuff" in Jita), and generally broadens the game.

this might be probably something to think about, but "banning" some ships from high might be too much

It already applies to boosters. My thinking is just to add the mechanic to officer and low/null spawn deadspace modules, but it does make logical sense to have it apply to certain hulls as well.

The logic is if you are flying a pirate faction ship or using obvious pirate faction modules you will be treated as a pirate.

It's totally *unfair*, of course, but it is exactly the way bureaucracies think.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#110 - 2012-11-20 16:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
nikon56 wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Black market modules.

Modules that only spawn in lowsec and nullsec are *illegal* in highsec.
No super-pimp machariels running full officer fits doing missions out of highsec L4 mission hubs, because they'll *always* have a hostile escort above and beyond the mission.

This allows for a higher spawn rate of those modules without unbalancing highsec payouts, so the isk price goes down. Some of the lower meta modules could even be awarded directly as mission rewards.

This gives the mission runners a reason to break out of the highsec nursery, opens up the possibility of lowsec and NPC nullsec trade hubs (of necessity as you would not be able to trade the "good stuff" in Jita), and generally broadens the game.

this might be probably something to think about, but "banning" some ships from high might be too much

It already applies to boosters. My thinking is just to add the mechanic to officer and low/null spawn deadspace modules, but it does make logical sense to have it apply to certain hulls as well.

The logic is if you are flying a pirate faction ship or using obvious pirate faction modules you will be treated as a pirate.

It's totally *unfair*, of course, but it is exactly the way bureaucracies think.

i see your point, expect cataclysm of carebears tears.

actually, i could love to see this happenBig smile

if i got you right, this would mean for highsec:

no more pirate hull / modules.
no more deadspace / officier modules.

but navy likes mods / hull would still be OK.

yes, i see tears, lot of them judging by the nb. of machariel / rattlesnacke i cross in pve fits in high.

what about implants? some like slave are pirates stuff too
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#111 - 2012-11-20 16:33:26 UTC
Implants would have to follow the same rules as boosters. In cargo: contraband, implanted: invisible to customs.

I can't think of a better way to handle that, and simply making them harder to trade in highsec would be a big deal.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#112 - 2012-11-20 18:39:56 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
well you said the access gate would unlock only to the mission runner and he's fleetmate.

this make them ungankable on the site, because when you scan someone running a site / mission involving gates, you will warp to the first gate (even if he's in the 3rd room etc...), then you will not be able to activate it, so they are ungankable.

if lowsec reward is not worth loosing a PVE ship, then don't go there.

Point 1, in this context, PvP at the expense of PvE is not seen as balanced risk. It is effectively random griefing as the devs have made PvE mission running demand aspects that are not compatible with PvP. High sec is the logical place for focused mission running, but this thread is devoted to the idea it may be possible to include low sec.

Point 2, this means it is necessary to compromise. That means PvP cannot be free access to PvE the way it is now, because this is precisely why PvE is avoided in low sec.

PvP gets access, in a limited fashion, to the mission runners. In exchange, mission runners risk the reward being lost to PvP pilots, assuming the mission itself is not made out of reach.
(It won't matter if you always get the ship back if you never reach the mission site)

nikon56 wrote:
plus any lvl4 mission can be runned using a T1 BS no problem, not even the need of a pirate / navy one (i solo run world collide in a T2 fitted Maelstrom or dominix in 0.2 system with no problem, so any player with enought skill to do LVL4 can do it)

Pointing out that a cheaper or compromised fit for PvP endurance can work for some, dodges the basic idea.

They could already do this if it made sense to them.

We are trying to work towards what it would take to make LowSec PvE appeal to THEM.
The pilots already doing this are NOT part of this equation. It's good to know they found fun another way, but their problem is solved already, as you pointed out.

Now, as increasing reward is demonstrated to be the wrong path by past experience, how would you decrease risk?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#113 - 2012-11-20 18:44:33 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
i see your point, expect cataclysm of carebears tears.

actually, i could love to see this happenBig smile

if i got you right, this would mean for highsec:

no more pirate hull / modules.
no more deadspace / officier modules.

but navy likes mods / hull would still be OK.

yes, i see tears, lot of them judging by the nb. of machariel / rattlesnacke i cross in pve fits in high.

what about implants? some like slave are pirates stuff too

I applaud the goal, but this would effectively nerf current high sec mission running if hulls or modules were blacklisted as illegal.

You won't convince anyone to try low, by removing what they like about high. You will probably convince some of them to try a different game.

These players are never going to leave their comfort zone because of changes like that.

You need to convince them they can find what they want in more places, not less.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#114 - 2012-11-20 19:19:08 UTC
I learned to solo L4 missions in highsec without officer/deadspace fits in ordinary T1 ships (love that arty-cane). A T2 fit Marauder can handle any highsec mission solo (though you might want to adjust your fit for particular missions)

Anyone who is running pimpfit T2/faction hulls is not getting a PvE challenge, they are just farming.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#115 - 2012-11-20 19:39:37 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
I learned to solo L4 missions in highsec without officer/deadspace fits in ordinary T1 ships (love that arty-cane). A T2 fit Marauder can handle any highsec mission solo (though you might want to adjust your fit for particular missions)

Anyone who is running pimpfit T2/faction hulls is not getting a PvE challenge, they are just farming.

Let's say I agree, so we can get past this detail. They don't need more than T1 or T2 hulls and mods.

This being accepted, how does removing them by making them illegal convince the remaining PvE pilots that they can now attempt missions in low sec?

The premise that they are avoiding low sec due to perceived risk of PvP doom seems to not be connected to what they do, or do not, have in high sec.

In order of consideration:
QUESTION 1 >>> Can I survive there if I go to do things there?
QUESTION 2 >>> Is it worth the effort?

You need to get past the perceived answer to question 1, in order for the reward to affect the answer to question 2.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#116 - 2012-11-20 22:07:07 UTC
The spawn rates of the boss-drop modules can be increased without buffing highsec payouts if they can't be effectively used in highsec, so they can be more readily available to people choosing to run out of low and nullsec.

This reduces the *cost* of failure, thereby reducing the perceived risk, as well as increasing the perceived reward.

Hit both sides of the equation at once and people tend to take notice.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#117 - 2012-11-20 22:13:40 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
The spawn rates of the boss-drop modules can be increased without buffing highsec payouts if they can't be effectively used in highsec, so they can be more readily available to people choosing to run out of low and nullsec.

This reduces the *cost* of failure, thereby reducing the perceived risk, as well as increasing the perceived reward.

Hit both sides of the equation at once and people tend to take notice.

Hitting both sides means reducing risk too. Not just the cost to recover.

While this might be a great idea if the other details lined up, I don't see it making the PvE pilot jump into low sec.

The problem is noone is doing much mission running in a shooting gallery, which is the reputation LowSec has with many of these.

They need a sense of being able to control whether or not they will be ganked, without compromising the gameplay they log in to enjoy.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#118 - 2012-11-22 08:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Nikk Narrel wrote:
nikon56 wrote:
i see your point, expect cataclysm of carebears tears.

actually, i could love to see this happenBig smile

if i got you right, this would mean for highsec:

no more pirate hull / modules.
no more deadspace / officier modules.

but navy likes mods / hull would still be OK.

yes, i see tears, lot of them judging by the nb. of machariel / rattlesnacke i cross in pve fits in high.

what about implants? some like slave are pirates stuff too

I applaud the goal, but this would effectively nerf current high sec mission running if hulls or modules were blacklisted as illegal.

You won't convince anyone to try low, by removing what they like about high. You will probably convince some of them to try a different game.

These players are never going to leave their comfort zone because of changes like that.

You need to convince them they can find what they want in more places, not less.

well,to me, the proposal you are making about lowsec would have the exact same result on lowsec ppl:

"by removing what they like about low. You will probably convince some of them to try a different game."

any of the change you are proposing would have huge impact on lowsec.

you would nerf 1/3 of the player base for a few mission runners who want a few extra bucks without gettin their feet wet.
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#119 - 2012-11-22 08:53:42 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
I learned to solo L4 missions in highsec without officer/deadspace fits in ordinary T1 ships (love that arty-cane). A T2 fit Marauder can handle any highsec mission solo (though you might want to adjust your fit for particular missions)

Anyone who is running pimpfit T2/faction hulls is not getting a PvE challenge, they are just farming.


exactly, i did i in a machariel (not even pimp fit, hull + mod was around 2B) with a noctis following, it there was no challenge. at all.

the salvage took more time than the killing in almost any mission.

this is why i stopped pve, and joined a lowsec alliance.

farming is not apealing after a few months cause there is no challange at all.

same start to happen to lowsec sig to me, there is only a few DED that might be considered a challenge in solo currently for me, but i start to check more and more often for C1 / C2 WH .

but the best challenge remains pvp, where you really have a chance to get an adrenaline shot and when the reward could turn in loss in a split second
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#120 - 2012-11-22 19:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
nikon56 wrote:
well,to me, the proposal you are making about lowsec would have the exact same result on lowsec ppl:

"by removing what they like about low. You will probably convince some of them to try a different game."

any of the change you are proposing would have huge impact on lowsec.

you would nerf 1/3 of the player base for a few mission runners who want a few extra bucks without gettin their feet wet.

Ok, not that I don't appreciate input, but instead of saying it cannot be done, try thinking of ways it could be.

And if you are firm on the idea that unblocked ganking of mission runners is vital to lowsec pilots, then quite simply they are the obstacle to high sec PvE pilots being more willing to try low.

It is exactly the fear of this ganking which prevents a sense of comfort outside of High Sec.
All the needed rewards are in place already. They simply have no faith they will survive to collect them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...