These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Another hs thread post

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jaden Li
Doomheim
#21 - 2013-02-20 16:12:19 UTC
Love the way it's always the non-highsec dwellers always calling for changes to highsec and complaining that it's not fair.

How many highsec dwellers do you see complaining about lowsec/0.0/WH space?

Let people play the game how they want.
Mikey Aivo
Original Sinners
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2013-02-20 16:15:56 UTC
Jaden Li wrote:
Love the way it's always the non-highsec dwellers always calling for changes to highsec and complaining that it's not fair.

How many highsec dwellers do you see complaining about lowsec/0.0/WH space?

Let people play the game how they want.


I Accually do live in hs and am part of rather large mining group. Just an fyi
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-02-20 16:16:40 UTC  |  Edited by: TheBlueMonkey
Rather than "less highsec" I'd prefer "dynamic highsec" but then I'm an ass.

Basically the more ratting\missioning\etc there is in one system the higher the sec status goes.
The downside to this is that the higher the sec status goes the lower the missions get.

Level 5's would be in low
Level 4's in 0.5/0.6
Level 3's 0.7/0.8
Level 2's 0.9
Level 1's 1.0

Asteroids that would spawn in systems would vary too, again, based on sec status.
1.0 systems would have small veld asteroids but wouldn't allow strip miners to be activated in system.
Then 0.9-0.5 would increase in amount and type of ore.

Low would have better ores still and then 0.0 would have ores that don't spawn in low\high.

To keep the newbies safe(ish) there would be a fixed number of 1.0/0.9/0.8 systems which would adjoin each other.

FW would take place in low sec systems between factions. First their FW action would drive the system sec down to 1.0, then it would switch from one faction to the other. Then as they continue to FW the sec status raises for their faction to 0.4 at which point level 5 agents would start to appear.

Difficult to do? sure.
Interesting results? probably not, this is an MMO so people would find a way to break it.

I'd still like to see it though

It also means that missions runners wouldn't always sit in the same bit of space and them constantly ratting would actually have an effect on more than just their wallets.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-02-20 16:19:07 UTC
Mikey Aivo wrote:
As it is highsec industry corps don't recruit pvpers, why?


Because they have less than no interest in PVP.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Kristopher Rocancourt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2013-02-20 16:19:29 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Mikey Aivo wrote:
Just an idea, instead of nerfing highsec or making non pvp zones, why not just reduce the amount of highsec systems?


How about no.

Mikey Aivo wrote:

This would force people into a tighter busier space. If highsec was limited to 24 systems how long untill the miners deplete the belts,


About 1 minute longer than it takes 200K high sec miner accounts to unsub the game.



Mikey Aivo wrote:

the Indys take all the moons and all of a sudden the little corps are forced to wardec other corps so they can get a piece of the pie? Need a moon, gotta pos bash.


Indy corps taking moons... lol.... because Indy corps so want to get hot dropped by suppers.

Indy corps DO NOT war dec each other. They do everything they can to avoid war. War is really bad for profits, recruitment, logistics, etc, etc.



Mikey Aivo wrote:

Need sone rocks? Gotta get to ganking and "claiming" space.



They won't need rocks because they won't be playing the game anymore.



miner tears best tears ^^

http://killalliance.co.uk/tears/tears-holeysheet/

Sarok Zateki
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-02-20 16:28:35 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Mikey Aivo wrote:
How about yes,


Why do you hate CCP and want to bankrupt them?


Mikey Aivo wrote:
They won't unsub because they didn't really loose anything


Rocks will be gone, moons taken, station manufacturing slots gone, etc, etc, etc,

You can't squeeze 200K high sec industrialists, 20K of which are on at a time, into like 27 systems.

They will quit.


wow you always whine and threat to quit when you dont like some idea, also are you and those others that always show up the same person?
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2013-02-20 16:38:57 UTC
Mikey Aivo wrote:
As it is highsec industry corps don't recruit pvpers, why? No targets.


PVPers want war. Industrialists want to avoid war at all costs.

As soon as a high sec industrial corp starts recruiting PVPers for a planned move to "something bigger and better", and the industrialists drop from the corp. I've seen it happen like 3 times.



Mikey Aivo wrote:
How many higsec corps die as it is if they go through a month or more of wardecs from random griefers?


Most. So, the idea of shrinking high sec to 20-something systems. The answer is that these high sec industry corps all die. And where do these players with no interest in PVP go when there is no place to casually play the game away from war? Right... they quit the game.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#28 - 2013-02-20 16:39:04 UTC
If reducing the amount of space available will promote player interaction and more dynamic gameplay, let's just have one highsec system, one lowsec system, and one nullsec system.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-02-20 16:43:01 UTC
Sarok Zateki wrote:

wow you always whine and threat to quit when you dont like some idea, also are you and those others that always show up the same person?



In any thread that proposes changes that will force high-sec carebears to be something other than war and PVP avoiding, high-sec carebears, will simply result in all those high-sec carebears quitting the game.


They are high sec carebears because they have NO INTEREST in being anything else.

You can't force them to play the game any way other than how they want to, because you can't force them to play the game.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2013-02-20 16:43:42 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
If reducing the amount of space available will promote player interaction and more dynamic gameplay, let's just have one highsec system, one lowsec system, and one nullsec system.


and 20 players.

That should be good for CCP's bottom line!
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-02-20 16:49:40 UTC
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
Rather than "less highsec" I'd prefer "dynamic highsec" but then I'm an ass.

Basically the more ratting\missioning\etc there is in one system the higher the sec status goes.
The downside to this is that the higher the sec status goes the lower the missions get.


Let's implement that idea across all of EVE. Too much ratting in null system, like a haven run a couple times a day, and it gets more secure.... Let's turn ALL of EVE into 1.0 or WH.


What would be the intent of your "dynamic high sec" idea?
Karle Tabot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-02-20 16:54:34 UTC
Mikey Aivo wrote:
Just an idea, instead of nerfing highsec or making non pvp zones, why not just reduce the amount of highsec systems?
This would force people into a tighter busier space. If highsec was limited to 24 systems how long untill the miners deplete the belts, the Indys take all the moons and all of a sudden the little corps are forced to wardec other corps so they can get a piece of the pie? Need a moon, gotta pos bash. Need sone rocks? Gotta get to ganking and "claiming" space. Don't want to compete with a ton of bears? Move off to low or null. Ccp could also just throw a bunch of highsec islands in here and there and that would give larger corps an option of gate camping the connectig systems to protect their highsec belts. This wouldn't break the game just forcing players to compete against each other, could also breathe new life into the wardec / merc lifestyle. Also would alow gankers endless targets in a handful of systems



Lets see: New players are at a tremendous disadvantage when going against veterans, so you want to make it so new players have no choice but to be out in the open and exposed to you. I see where you are coming from.

Lets see: Eve is a sandbox where everyone is supposed to be able to do what they want to do, but since they are not doing what you want them to do, i.e., going to lawless space where you can easily kill them and take all their stuff, you want to change the sandbox. I see where you are coming from.

Lets see: Low/null sec is THE place to be, it is where ALL THE FUN IS, but here is yet another one who is having so much fun in low/null sec he is on the forums complaining there are too many people in high sec. I see where you are coming from.

The truth is there are far far too many people playing this game whose only fun is if they can get the equivalent of a grown male fistfighting a one year old so they can steal the baby's candy and brag about it. If low/null sec is so much great fun you guys need to spend some time there in fact having all that fun instead of constantly coming here and drowning us in your tears.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#33 - 2013-02-20 16:55:47 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
because Indy corps so want to get hot dropped by suppers.

I really hate it when I hot-drop my supper...

OP, I agree, high-sec should be half the size it is now, if not smaller. The "converted" systems should be low-sec.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#34 - 2013-02-20 16:56:28 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
If reducing the amount of space available will promote player interaction and more dynamic gameplay, let's just have one highsec system, one lowsec system, and one nullsec system.

Imagine the gate camps...

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-02-20 16:59:32 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Not a bad idea, it would increase competition for highsec resources. Which, in theory should increase highsec aggression as people will fight over those resources but, what about untouchable NPC corps? The existence of NPC corps defeats what your idea would hope to achieve.



"in theory"...

And in practice would simply result in mass unsub.


That's perfectly fine there will be others who do sub because of the content created. I love how the first reaction from the "plexing my account AFK in highsec from my npc corp" poster always threaten to unsubscribe for even the smallest of changes.

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
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-02-20 17:03:29 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:

OP, I agree, high-sec should be half the size it is now, if not smaller. The "converted" systems should be low-sec.


Why do you want more, totally empty, low sec systems? Like there aren't enough empty low sec systems now?
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#37 - 2013-02-20 17:04:33 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

That's perfectly fine there will be others who do sub because of the content created.
Doubt *this* very strongly, or we'd see a much higher flow-through of short-term subscriptions than we currently see. EVE is well known - those who are going to try it largely have. Very much doubt that anything CCP can do at this point will create a 'flood' of new subscribers. OTOH, CCP can certainly create conditions that will result in a flood of un-subs.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-02-20 17:06:41 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

That's perfectly fine there will be others who do sub because of the content created. I love how the first reaction from the "plexing my account AFK in highsec from my npc corp" poster always threaten to unsubscribe for even the smallest of changes.



Explain.

What new content?

We shrink high sec to 20 systems. 200K people that currenlty play high sec unsb the game.

What new content has been created?


La Nariz wrote:

love how the first reaction from the "plexing my account AFK in highsec from my npc corp" poster always threaten to unsubscribe for even the smallest of changes.


Why do you think CCP created high sec, CONCORD, NPC corps, etc? The answer is, to bring in a larger player base because they were teetering on bankruptcy with the tiny player base they had. So, what would happen if they remove that content? Right, CCP goes bankrupt. No more EVE.
Kristopher Rocancourt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-02-20 17:08:51 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

That's perfectly fine there will be others who do sub because of the content created. I love how the first reaction from the "plexing my account AFK in highsec from my npc corp" poster always threaten to unsubscribe for even the smallest of changes.



Explain.

What new content?

We shrink high sec to 20 systems. 200K people that currenlty play high sec unsb the game.

What new content has been created?


La Nariz wrote:

love how the first reaction from the "plexing my account AFK in highsec from my npc corp" poster always threaten to unsubscribe for even the smallest of changes.


Why do you think CCP created high sec, CONCORD, NPC corps, etc? The answer is, to bring in a larger player base because they were teetering on bankruptcy with the tiny player base they had. So, what would happen if they remove that content? Right, CCP goes bankrupt. No more EVE.



what drugs are you smoking that make you so delusional that you think there are even 200k carebears that give a sh&t enough to unsub.
There are the fanatical few, others play to have fun.
p.s. post on main pls.

http://killalliance.co.uk/tears/tears-holeysheet/

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2013-02-20 17:18:35 UTC
Mikey Aivo wrote:
Just an idea, instead of nerfing highsec or making non pvp zones, why not just reduce the amount of highsec systems?
This would force people into a tighter busier space. If highsec was limited to 24 systems how long untill the miners deplete the belts, the Indys take all the moons and all of a sudden the little corps are forced to wardec other corps so they can get a piece of the pie? Need a moon, gotta pos bash. Need sone rocks? Gotta get to ganking and "claiming" space. Don't want to compete with a ton of bears? Move off to low or null. Ccp could also just throw a bunch of highsec islands in here and there and that would give larger corps an option of gate camping the connectig systems to protect their highsec belts. This wouldn't break the game just forcing players to compete against each other, could also breathe new life into the wardec / merc lifestyle. Also would alow gankers endless targets in a handful of systems



One thing I noticed about the new ui and I REALLY liked... is in AP options (also on upper left of ui by default) it has a slider to avoid systems based on security.

That scaling slider bar I thought was a fantastic element to add instead of just "high/low/null" absolutes. Changing security rating of system is awesome.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.