These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerf High-sec because internet spaceships is not meant to be hello-kitty online
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#101 - 2013-01-18 10:43:57 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
so our idea is now to make PvE fits more like PvP fits.

so, omni tanks, propulsion modules, warp scrams, and a lack of (long term) cap stability

if missions did become shorter, more about range control and lowered dps amounts but spread it across damage types, then that would probably help

some lvl 4 / combat sig can be runned with speed tanking frigates.

i used to do some in dardevil / dramiel.

a pvp drake / pvp tengu can do it....

solutions already exists, but if you take your 5B officier machariel, of course........
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#102 - 2013-01-18 13:38:51 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
The PVP/PVE mismatch is one part of the core problem. I support any solution to it- it deserves it's own threadnaught IMO, but I don't have any ideas on how to address it so I won't be starting it.
_

On to the highsec/lowsec business: Regardless of our respective opinions about the mechanics and how to address them, there is an irreconcilable difference between people like myself and people like the OP. The OP wants more targets to pvp with and more tears to collect; I want to increase the player retention and number of players of EVE as a whole. These are not mutually exclusive, but people like the OP have to accept that increasing EVE subscribers is a good thing and benefits everyone, themselves included, and make a couple sacrifices to accommodate it. The only sacrifice needed is to make lowsec safer, and move their current lowsec activities into NPC null, which is a pretty minor change. The gameplay you want will still be there, it's just going to move a few jumps. In it's place would be a whole new type of gameplay that noones ever seen before.

Head over to https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=187645 to see what I mean, and bump it up if you have feedback. Or start your own thread. I don't care. As long as this "nerf highsec" nonsense dies the death it deserves and the conversation moves on to a productive topic.



The problem with folks like the OP & supporters is that if losec was moved to NPC null we would shortly have this exact same thread about nerfing high/low and moving all money to NPC null so that we are forced to wallow helplessly in their Target box there instead.

This is about getting them targets that they can easily kill. The few that bear it up in lowsec are tougher and harder to catch, they don't like that. It seems to be unreasonable that bears have pvp competitive ships (non-consensual does not need to apply to them), or any sort of equity in effort to counter them. I must bring at least one escort to counter one hunting pirate-- and/or hit dscan every few seconds so I can hide for potentially hours until he allows me to play the part of the game I enjoy again. The current situation isn't balanced in any way, but any changes must maintain this balance while forcing others to become his victims.
Tarpedo
Incursionista
#103 - 2013-01-18 14:26:29 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Make rats have bigger bounties


People reporting 150mil/hour income from *solo* farming in machariel with fighters (or 60-90mil in cheaper ships) - and it's still not enough for null dwellers? Talk about hi-sec carebears entitlement.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#104 - 2013-01-18 14:27:45 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Ines Tegator wrote:
The PVP/PVE mismatch is one part of the core problem. I support any solution to it- it deserves it's own threadnaught IMO, but I don't have any ideas on how to address it so I won't be starting it.
_

On to the highsec/lowsec business: Regardless of our respective opinions about the mechanics and how to address them, there is an irreconcilable difference between people like myself and people like the OP. The OP wants more targets to pvp with and more tears to collect; I want to increase the player retention and number of players of EVE as a whole. These are not mutually exclusive, but people like the OP have to accept that increasing EVE subscribers is a good thing and benefits everyone, themselves included, and make a couple sacrifices to accommodate it. The only sacrifice needed is to make lowsec safer, and move their current lowsec activities into NPC null, which is a pretty minor change. The gameplay you want will still be there, it's just going to move a few jumps. In it's place would be a whole new type of gameplay that noones ever seen before.

Head over to https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=187645 to see what I mean, and bump it up if you have feedback. Or start your own thread. I don't care. As long as this "nerf highsec" nonsense dies the death it deserves and the conversation moves on to a productive topic.



The problem with folks like the OP & supporters is that if losec was moved to NPC null we would shortly have this exact same thread about nerfing high/low and moving all money to NPC null so that we are forced to wallow helplessly in their Target box there instead.

This is about getting them targets that they can easily kill. The few that bear it up in lowsec are tougher and harder to catch, they don't like that. It seems to be unreasonable that bears have pvp competitive ships (non-consensual does not need to apply to them), or any sort of equity in effort to counter them. I must bring at least one escort to counter one hunting pirate-- and/or hit dscan every few seconds so I can hide for potentially hours until he allows me to play the part of the game I enjoy again. The current situation isn't balanced in any way, but any changes must maintain this balance while forcing others to become his victims.

The funny part, is that this problem exists due to enthusiastic overhunting of the targets in their area.

If they had not been so quick to shoot at any possible target, the targets would not have been driven away by this very behavior.

Example for those used to different terms: They used NBSI logic in a part of space where few if any could be expected to be blue. If they had stuck to NRDS instead, they would still have a solid population. Maybe not high sec levels, sure, but I don't think anyone seriously would expect that either.

The fact that they would need to war dec or manually set settings to achieve this, however, was never seriously considered. And that is part of why we are in this situation now.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2013-01-18 21:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Quote:
It seems to be unreasonable that bears have pvp competitive ships

No, that would be one perfectly reasonable solution. And it has been mentioned here many times. If PVE were more like PVP, then you would see more people going to low/null, since they could defend themselves against pirates of equal numbers. That would be great.

Quote:
I must bring at least one escort to counter one hunting pirate - and/or hit dscan every few seconds so I can hide for potentially hours until he allows me to play the part of the game I enjoy again.

No, you must bring at least one escort to counter one hunting pirate (or hit d-scan/run) >>>IF<<< you want to get high payouts. If you don't want to bring an escort, or cant figure out how to keep them entertained, or don't have any friends, then stick to high sec where you dont need the escort.

However, you shouldn't be rewarded for being wimpy, casual, or uncreative. If you do choose to stick to high sec and forego the escort, etc., then you should be rewarded with much lower payouts than you would get in lowsec (even with the mercenaries to help you or the running and hiding taken into account).

That's not the case now. You get rewarded MORE for being less creative and wimpier and taking fewer risks. That is what the thread is about: making that no longer true.

Nothing suggested here in the whole thread is about FORCING you to do anything, unlike you would have people believe. It is just about adjusting rewards to be appropriate to what you choose to do.

As every single Eve advertisement ever points out: this game is about reaping the consequences of your own decisions. The decision to stay in cushy safe high sec should remain an option, but have a negative consequence (lower NET profits) just like anything else.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#106 - 2013-01-18 21:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:

However, you shouldn't be rewarded for being wimpy, casual, or uncreative. If you do choose to stick to high sec and forego the escort, etc., then you should be rewarded with much lower payouts than you would get in lowsec

This is already the case. LP payouts on missions increase by up to 40%, rat bounties increase by up to %3300 (a 30k highsec frigate vs a 1mil BS in a lwosec anom), and exploration profits increase massively as well.

Quote:

(even with the mercenaries to help you or the running and hiding taken into account).

Assuming an even split, this would mean doubling, tripling, or more of the income. That's totally not exploitable or unbalanced Roll.

Quote:

That's not the case now. You get rewarded MORE for being less creative and wimpier and taking fewer risks. That is what the thread is about: making that no longer true.

You don't get rewarded more by staying in highsec. You get punished less. There is a very large difference in both the psychology, and the mechanics involved.

Overhaul Dscan!
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2013-01-18 22:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Ines Tegator wrote:
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:

However, you shouldn't be rewarded for being wimpy, casual, or uncreative. If you do choose to stick to high sec and forego the escort, etc., then you should be rewarded with much lower payouts than you would get in lowsec

This is already the case. LP payouts on missions increase by up to 40%, rat bounties increase by up to %3300 (a 30k highsec frigate vs a 1mil BS in a lwosec anom), and exploration profits increase massively as well.

40% is nothing - if you have to run off for even just a little over the amount of time you could have completed the mission in, then your NET PROFITS are lower than in high sec. And that's not even considering the minor chance that you lose your ship to a PVPer.

The payouts need to not just be higher, but enough higher that even when you take into account running away (or splitting the winnings with escorts), and losing occasional ships, you still make more money on average than in high sec. 40% ain't nearly enough higher. Especially for missions and exploration, where you have to return to the same site.

Rats are probably fine, though.

Quote:
Quote:

(even with the mercenaries to help you or the running and hiding taken into account).

Assuming an even split, this would mean doubling, tripling, or more of the income. That's totally not exploitable or unbalanced Roll.

If that's what it takes, yes. It would NOT be "unbalanced" because the whole point of making it double or triple or more would be to make the overall net profits slightly higher in low sec. CCP would just tweak it until it was, in fact, slightly more money coming in from low sec per hour than high sec. Thus, by definition, not unbalanced. And how would it be exploitable? You can't stop third party pirates from scanning you down, so there is no way to exploit the payouts that you get from stopping them from finding you.

Quote:

You don't get rewarded more by staying in highsec. You get punished less. There is a very large difference in both the psychology, and the mechanics involved.

As a doctoral student in cognitive and behavioral psychology, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.
There is indeed a difference between negative reinforcement (removing pain) and positive reinforcement (adding pleasure), in terms of your expectations about the world and aspects of your personality, things like that, if you are constantly exposed to one or the other (e.g. how much you love and/or respect your parents based on their discipline style).

However, there is very little or no difference between the two when it comes to the basic intended effect of encouraging more of the desired behavior. Either will be very effective at getting the person to behave in the reinforced way. in this case, people staying in high sec.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#108 - 2013-01-18 22:27:48 UTC
No one is trying to FORCE anyone to do anything... You just want to apply unwanted economic stimulus to encourage behavior that is unpleasant to the ones that would be performing the service. I DO NOT WANT TO BE HUNTED IN A NEARLY DEFENSELESS SHIP BY PIRATES. Making changes so that I must do so to maintain my current standard of living, which is not that great compared to many, is applying force to get me to do something I do not want to do. You wish for a negative change to my game to attempt a positive game in yours. Not only will this not work (it has been tried before), the levels of change required would destroy the economy and simply force people out of the game, not into your target box. Bad Idea is Bad. Time to come up with a new one.

No one forces you to go out and get a job either, unless of course you like eating. Get a clue. You want CCP to change the game to get you more easy targets. If you think that playstyle is so worthwhile, grab a mission ship and be the target for someone else. After all, it's so easy, and you love PVP so much, you finally won't have a hard time finding fights in Low Sec.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#109 - 2013-01-18 22:30:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
No one is trying to FORCE anyone to do anything... You just want to apply unwanted economic stimulus to encourage behavior that is unpleasant to the ones that would be performing the service. I DO NOT WANT TO BE HUNTED IN A NEARLY DEFENSELESS SHIP BY PIRATES. Making changes so that I must do so to maintain my current standard of living, which is not that great compared to many, is applying force to get me to do something I do not want to do. You wish for a negative change to my game to attempt a positive game in yours. Not only will this not work (it has been tried before), the levels of change required would destroy the economy and simply force people out of the game, not into your target box. Bad Idea is Bad. Time to come up with a new one.

No one forces you to go out and get a job either, unless of course you like eating. Get a clue. You want CCP to change the game to get you more easy targets. If you think that playstyle is so worthwhile, grab a mission ship and be the target for someone else. After all, it's so easy, and you love PVP so much, you finally won't have a hard time finding fights in Low Sec.

This

And just for emphasis:

If you think that playstyle is so worthwhile, grab a mission ship and be the target for someone else. After all, it's so easy, and you love PVP so much, you finally won't have a hard time finding fights in Low Sec.

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