These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Making Lowsec More Dynamic......... which is good for everybody.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-10-27 20:41:19 UTC
I am of the firm belief that a good measure of the health of eve is the health of lowsec activity and piracy.

I am adding this idea from a previous thread i did on a separate forum category, as i didn't get much (no) input really on it. Hope i can get more feedback on it here. Tell me what you think, the positive and possible negatives of it. I hope you all will continue to give ideas as some of you have already done to create an eve universe that is dynamic, exciting, and at times unpredictable.



I have been reading over the forums for the last several weeks and have notice several people complaining about how there seems to be a lack of population/activity in lowsec other than going to empire from 0.0 or vice versa.

I don't believe that it is a huge of a problem as some believe, however it is an issue and should be addressed somehow.


Here is my idea:

The system layout of eve is fairly straight forward empire--->lowsec--->0.0. There are all sorts of variety in the arrangement of these systems to overlap somewhat.

We have a few high sec island systems in lowsec.

We have low sec constellations surrounded by empire.

We have 0.0 npc space.


I propose we implement 0.0 island systems in lowsec, perhaps 1 or 2 in each lowsec region. It could be made a npc system but may be better to leave it player owned as this will create volatility (activity) fighting for control of it.
I believe that this would dramatically increase player activity in lowsec as piracy would love to camp gates going into that system.
It would also slightly change the dynamic of the relationship of 0.0 to lowsec.
This would also increase curiosity in younger players/corps as it would give players a stepping stone to what really 0.0 is like.
It would also provide the opportunity for CCP to introduce some new storyline/agents/annomolies if they wish to make the system npc 0.0.

Overall i think that putting a 0.0 island system or two in each lowsec region would mixed up the routine and give a new dynamic and interest in lowsec.

Looking forward to your comments, for or against.

And as always, keep them constructive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

"Your Erebus is docked? How did that happen?" "It took a lot of grease and pushing......."
Xoria Krint
The Angelic
#2 - 2011-10-27 20:42:45 UTC
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-10-27 20:50:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Satav
Xoria Krint wrote:
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?


lol. hope that doesn't make everyone that lives in highsec a miner.............
Xoria Krint
The Angelic
#4 - 2011-10-27 20:53:09 UTC
Satav wrote:
Xoria Krint wrote:
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?


lol. hope that doesn't making everyone that lives in highsec a miner.............

You laugh? Think about it. There is no sense of having level 4 agents in high-sec. If they where moved to low-sec/null sec it would improve the population of these areas and also it would be risk vs reward, as it should be.

High-sec would still be populated by traders, haulers, mission runners (level 3) etc etc.
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-10-27 20:57:17 UTC
Just make the AI in L4s use sleeper AI, no more Domi AFKing missions, problem solved.

-The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it! Other names: Drenzul (WoT, WoW, Lineage 2, WarH, BloodBowl, BSG, SC2 and lots more) 
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-10-27 20:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Satav
Xoria Krint wrote:
Satav wrote:
Xoria Krint wrote:
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?


lol. hope that doesn't making everyone that lives in highsec a miner.............

You laugh? Think about it. There is no sense of having level 4 agents in high-sec. If they where moved to low-sec/null sec it would improve the population of these areas and also it would be risk vs reward, as it should be.

High-sec would still be populated by traders, haulers, mission runners (level 3) etc etc.


True. It would help.

You have to balance the risk vs. reward though. If there is too much risk, they will just move to 0.0 or WH.
Xoria Krint
The Angelic
#7 - 2011-10-27 20:58:17 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Just make the AI in L4s use sleeper AI, no more Domi AFKing missions, problem solved.

And then.... Removethemfromhighsec. Problem solved
Famble
Three's a Crowd
#8 - 2011-10-27 20:59:03 UTC
Xoria Krint wrote:
Satav wrote:
Xoria Krint wrote:
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?


lol. hope that doesn't making everyone that lives in highsec a miner.............

You laugh? Think about it. There is no sense of having level 4 agents in high-sec. If they where moved to low-sec/null sec it would improve the population of these areas and also it would be risk vs reward, as it should be.

High-sec would still be populated by traders, haulers, mission runners (level 3) etc etc.


Oh there'd be a population change from high-sec alright but those people would be moving to other-game-sec.

Think about that.

If anyone ever looks at you and says,_ "Hold my beer, watch this,"_  you're probably going to want to pay attention.
Xoria Krint
The Angelic
#9 - 2011-10-27 21:01:53 UTC
Famble wrote:
Xoria Krint wrote:
Satav wrote:
Xoria Krint wrote:
Or... We just remove all level 4 agents in high-sec?


lol. hope that doesn't making everyone that lives in highsec a miner.............

You laugh? Think about it. There is no sense of having level 4 agents in high-sec. If they where moved to low-sec/null sec it would improve the population of these areas and also it would be risk vs reward, as it should be.

High-sec would still be populated by traders, haulers, mission runners (level 3) etc etc.


Oh there'd be a population change from high-sec alright but those people would be moving to other-game-sec.

Think about that.

Some of them, maybe. But that's not our problem. Eve has always had a concept of a dark and harsh universe. A sandbox game where there is risk vs reward. Not getting rewarded by afking in empire. Let them leave if that's why they are playing. Or they can stay in high-sec and run level 3 missions.....
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#10 - 2011-10-27 21:03:04 UTC  |  Edited by: arcca jeth
im assuming when people say remove the L4 missions from high-sec that they are talking about making people run missions out of NPC NULL.

now think about it further, all those L4 players condensed into NPC NULL, because they cannot dock in player SOV NULL to even get the missions, thus retaining all those isk generating missions for use of those alliances that have stations. NPC NULL would be the only viable option and even further into it, it's not viable at all.

L4 mission hubs already have scavengers and griefers and gankers, what would happen if those players followed the L4 runners to NULL? I'll tell you, no one would complete a mission because all those gankers and griefers can now do so at no consequence....really its a recipe for disaster
Xoria Krint
The Angelic
#11 - 2011-10-27 21:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Xoria Krint
arcca jeth wrote:
im assuming when people say remove the L4 missions from high-sec that they are talking about making people run missions out of NPC NULL.

Wrong. They are removed from high-sec. But they can still be in low-sec (0.1-0.4) AND npc 0.0-space.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-10-27 21:05:36 UTC
arcca jeth wrote:
im assuming when people say remove the L4 missions from high-sec that they are talking about making people run missions out of NPC NULL.

now think about it further, all those L4 players condensed into NPC NULL, because they cannot dock in player SOV NULL to even get the missions, thus retaining all those isk generating missions for use of those alliances that have stations. NPC NULL would be the only viable option and even further into it, it's not viable at all.

L4 mission hubs already have scavengers and griefers and gankers, what would happen if those players followed the L4 runners to NULL? I'll tell you, no one would complete a mission because all those gankers and griefers can now do so at no consequence....really its a recipe for disaster


I completely agree.

Which is why i liked my original idea of mixing up the system layout of eve a little bit. having 0.0 island systems in lowsec.
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2011-10-27 21:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bischopt
A few of these island nullsec systems in lowsec could work but I dont think it should become a feature. Especially if those systems were be controlled by players because this would only make nullsec alliances take over lowsec as well. This would mean more supercaps and more senseless blobbing which would not do lowsec any good.
That's how I see it anyways.

edit:

NPC controlled island nullsec systems would still make it awfully easy for lowsec pirates to pirate without taking a sec hit and rat their sec back up after pirating in a lowsec system.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-10-27 21:07:57 UTC
Bischopt wrote:
A few of these island nullsec systems in lowsec could work but I dont think it should become a feature. Especially if those systems were be controlled by players because this would only make nullsec alliances take over lowsec as well. This would mean more supercaps and more senseless blobbing which would not do lowsec any good.
That's how I see it anyways.


I can see that point of view. Which is why it might be better to have those systems NPC null.
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-10-27 21:11:35 UTC
Satav wrote:
Bischopt wrote:
A few of these island nullsec systems in lowsec could work but I dont think it should become a feature. Especially if those systems were be controlled by players because this would only make nullsec alliances take over lowsec as well. This would mean more supercaps and more senseless blobbing which would not do lowsec any good.
That's how I see it anyways.


I can see that point of view. Which is why it might be better to have those systems NPC null.


made an edit about that but you were too quick to post some more :p

it's not a completely bad idea, but overall I think it wouldnt do that much good.
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#16 - 2011-10-27 21:17:42 UTC
People go to lowsec all the time. It's the closest thing EVE has to an arena system and it's where people go to blow some ISK pvpving at the end of the week.

They just don't live there unless they (or their pvp character) are below -4.5 sec status. Why should they? Highsec is right next door where you can only be suicide ganked or war dec'd versus low where you can be camped in station just like in null----and if you're fine with station camps then you might as well live in null, make more cash and have protection.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-27 21:17:54 UTC
Bischopt wrote:
Satav wrote:
Bischopt wrote:
A few of these island nullsec systems in lowsec could work but I dont think it should become a feature. Especially if those systems were be controlled by players because this would only make nullsec alliances take over lowsec as well. This would mean more supercaps and more senseless blobbing which would not do lowsec any good.
That's how I see it anyways.


I can see that point of view. Which is why it might be better to have those systems NPC null.


made an edit about that but you were too quick to post some more :p

it's not a completely bad idea, but overall I think it wouldnt do that much good.


Also true. Lowsec needs something unique and desirable that will make people want to go there. Putting a feature like that in these systems would make it work. It would have to be something of great reward/value but not sov based so that 0.0 alliances couldn't hog it.
Caulk H0lster
Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution
#18 - 2011-10-27 21:24:49 UTC
I don't think 0.0 in lowsec is a good idea, especially if the 0.0 pockets are part of a lowsec pipe, which I'm assuming would be the idea. That would mean bubbles and doomsdays and bombs, things that would make traveling in lowsec pretty impossible. Currently if you know what you're doing and have a cloak fit, you can travel pretty safely in lowsec, even in a BS.

I do agree though that lowsec needs something, however I also believe that "something" is already in the game.

Faction War.

Really, CCP just needs to make some changes to Faction War, and lowsec would be groovy. Having been in the militia a few times, my corps would eventually leave because there is really nothing to do. There were even times me or another militia FC would literally convo one of the hostile militia FCs to set up fights for our guys so they wouldn't get bored.

If there's objectives that are MEANINGFUL for FW dooders to achieve, more people will come join FW, and you might even see some corps organizing things a bit more so it functions more realistically, instead of the cluster**** that is is now.

IMHO, we should all probably just "wait and see" what CCP does with FW, and how THAT change will impact lowsec. Really bringing more people into FW is gonna be good for everyone, but the incentive is just not there for veteran players to be very seriously interested.
Dro Nee
#19 - 2011-10-27 21:29:59 UTC
Satav wrote:
I am of the firm belief that a good measure of the health of eve is the health of lowsec activity and piracy.

I have been reading over the forums for the last several weeks and have notice several people complaining about how there seems to be a lack of population/activity in lowsec other than going to empire from 0.0 or vice versa.



So let me get this straight.....

1) lowsec health is determined by number of forum threads regarding population
2) Lowsec health = significant part of EVE health

Logically:

EVE is healthy when there are very few forum threads about lowsec population/activity being insufficient.


1)This is a forum thread about how to increase lowsec population/activity.
2)Needing an increase implies that there is currently insufficient quantity.
3) Therefore, this is a forum thread about lowsec population/activity being insufficient.

4) You are killing EVE by posting.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-10-27 21:30:23 UTC
Caulk H0lster wrote:
I don't think 0.0 in lowsec is a good idea, especially if the 0.0 pockets are part of a lowsec pipe, which I'm assuming would be the idea. That would mean bubbles and doomsdays and bombs, things that would make traveling in lowsec pretty impossible. Currently if you know what you're doing and have a cloak fit, you can travel pretty safely in lowsec, even in a BS.

I do agree though that lowsec needs something, however I also believe that "something" is already in the game.

Faction War.

Really, CCP just needs to make some changes to Faction War, and lowsec would be groovy. Having been in the militia a few times, my corps would eventually leave because there is really nothing to do. There were even times me or another militia FC would literally convo one of the hostile militia FCs to set up fights for our guys so they wouldn't get bored.

If there's objectives that are MEANINGFUL for FW dooders to achieve, more people will come join FW, and you might even see some corps organizing things a bit more so it functions more realistically, instead of the cluster**** that is is now.

IMHO, we should all probably just "wait and see" what CCP does with FW, and how THAT change will impact lowsec. Really bringing more people into FW is gonna be good for everyone, but the incentive is just not there for veteran players to be very seriously interested.


lol. i miss FW days when fights were "organized" like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlZ0EcsneSg
12Next page