These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

What is the role of lowsec?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-11-11 04:46:57 UTC
I propose the idea that lowsec should be a bridge between the type of play that occurs in highsec, and the sort of play that occurs in sovereignty nullsec. Lowsec's role in EVE Online should be that of getting players interested in the idea of sovereignty, getting them familiar with the concept. Lowsec should be the battle ground of highsec, the real estate should be appealing to those in highsec to drive the inevitable conflict.

This proposal isn't about carebearing up lowsec. It's not about making space safer. Quite the contrary. This proposal's sole aim is to create mechanics that drive and encourage conflict. It's aim is to add value to valueless real estate. It is to encourage benevolency and piracy. It is to encourage people to involve themselves in more of the game. It is to provide a more graduated play environment that will lead some players from highsec to nullsec.

Complete post: Conflict and Lowsec
Joseph Dreadloch
Dread Space Inc.
#2 - 2011-11-11 04:53:13 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Lowsec's role in EVE Online should be that of getting players interested in the idea of sovereignty, getting them familiar with the concept.[/url]


A thousand times, NO. Lowsec is supposed to offer the dangers of nullsec without the headaches of large alliances or blobs.

My idea of a Lowsec fix would be to restrict the use of Supercaps, and perhaps even carriers. This would force Lowsec back into what it used to be, a haven for small gang pvp.
Apollo Gabriel
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#3 - 2011-11-11 04:54:29 UTC
I'd prefer low sec to be the transit between all the empires, no more high sec Amarr to Jita!
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#4 - 2011-11-11 04:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Couldn't you have put this in Features and Ideas instead of your blog? More people would find it there. P

Edit:
Apollo Gabriel wrote:
I'd prefer low sec to be the transit between all the empires, no more high sec Amarr to Jita!


You will only divide high sec that way. High sec core players always chose the safest option. So if that means having two economies and ignoring the other side, that is what they will do.
No matter how you nerf high sec, there are those players that will never go to low, null or WH space. X

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#5 - 2011-11-11 05:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
This is the role of lowsec:

"None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license" - John Milton

The rules are relaxed, but no player/alliance has enough power to enforce authority with bubbles, etc either. The results are predictable. Why would you expect it to be any different in the badlands where anyone can do anything they want and get away with it? That's just human nature, not CCP. Anything you do to lowsec will make it either more like care-bear space, where CCP is in charge, or like null space, where some alliance is in charge. There is no other choice.
Alara IonStorm
#6 - 2011-11-11 05:11:20 UTC
Honestly I would revamp Low Sec completely. I would remove all this Pirate for a Day stuff, the casualness of it. I would make it so if you Pirate you go Outlaw fast and have a 24 Hour Timer before the Hi Sec Gate Guns shoot you and a Week long warning flag that says you pirated. I would make it so if your Navy and shoot non flags you get a warning then kicked and if anyone shoots you they get a month of Aggro.

I would put open world PvE like Concord Rats(Not Hi Concord) and Hauler Spawns all through it that give good rewards and cut Sec Status. Then Bump up the rewards of Missions and Belt Spawns for non Pirates. Then I would bump up the Gate Guns on High Sec Transit Gates then remove them from everywhere else. Of Course ban Super Caps as well. I would also put a few Roving Concord spawns with Sleeper Stats to keep Pirates on the run that get less by System Sec Status. They would not be Omni present or in Deadspace but they would patrol Gates, Belts and Stations making a quick pass. Not a huge force but a little added worry to replace Gate Guns.

I would make it Pirates vs Navy and everyone else. If your a Pirate expect to be a Pirate, if not then you get to fight them. For all the I want casual PvP Crowd I would connect NPC Null straight to High Sec.

Turn Low Sec into a perpetual War for control from the Pirates.
Stan Smith
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2011-11-11 05:20:16 UTC
Apollo Gabriel wrote:
I'd prefer low sec to be the transit between all the empires, no more high sec Amarr to Jita!



people keep asking for it... NO! for some reason they try to back story it by saying the empires impose a buffer zone between empires. What they fail to comprehend is: The empires do no enforce security level. CONCORD, a third party organization enforces system security, and not the empires, and why would this organization want a buffer zone that effectively destroys inter-empire trade. so moral of the story, STOP SUGGESTING THIS! its never going to happen

☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-11 06:03:11 UTC
Joseph Dreadloch wrote:
A thousand times, NO. Lowsec is supposed to offer the dangers of nullsec without the headaches of large alliances or blobs.

I still think the differences between lowsec, npc nullsec, and w-space are minimal (mainly small variations in mechanics -- what is allowed and not allowed.) Other than bubbles and stealth bomber bombs, there is little to differentiate npc nullsec from lowsec. There's little reason to have two areas of the game so similar.

Thus, it seems logical that lowsec should change, and should be the bridge from highsec to other areas of the game. Lowsec needs an identity.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-11-11 06:06:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
No matter how you nerf high sec, there are those players that will never go to low, null or WH space. X

That is perfectly acceptable. But I think there is still a substantial proportion of players who would leave highsec for lowsec if they have some control over the systems they were interested in, even if that meant conflict and warfare.

(As written in another thread, certain types of highsec players like to create, not destroy. There's very little reason to create if stuff isn't being destroyed. Conflict drives this game. There's no arguing that. The game needs more avenues to create conflict, especially in the empire spaces.)
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-11-11 06:07:52 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Anything you do to lowsec will make it either more like care-bear space, where CCP is in charge, or like null space, where some alliance is in charge. There is no other choice.

I believe the proposal creates a middle ground between the two, a bridge between the two types of gameplay.
Joseph Dreadloch
Dread Space Inc.
#11 - 2011-11-11 06:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Joseph Dreadloch
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Thus, it seems logical that lowsec should change, and should be the bridge from highsec to other areas of the game. Lowsec needs an identity.


Remove Supercaps from Lowsec, and maybe carriers, and Lowsec will be the home of small scale elite PvP again.

Which leaves nullsec to be the home of the blob and highsec the home of the gank.

Lowsec does not need to have Sov added, and be just a second version of null.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-11-11 06:09:42 UTC
Stan Smith wrote:
people keep asking for it... NO! for some reason they try to back story it by saying the empires impose a buffer zone between empires. What they fail to comprehend is: The empires do no enforce security level. CONCORD, a third party organization enforces system security, and not the empires, and why would this organization want a buffer zone that effectively destroys inter-empire trade. so moral of the story, STOP SUGGESTING THIS! its never going to happen

This game has no real lore. Lore is whatever CCP wants it to be on a given day of the week. There's no retardedly long history of canon with this game, this is not Star Wars, Star Trek, or Doctor Who.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#13 - 2011-11-11 06:18:25 UTC
Only way to fix low sec is to make a lawless sec of space the buffer between null and the new low with no turf control.

Then make low sec semi safe but require pvp fit missions out the and create more dangerious rats that you rather be pvp fit to fight for and dungeons which requires teamwork that way.

The new low sec is still controlled by npcs but smaller corporations can contribute to empire building by helping out the local owning faction they are loyal to. Only capsullers loyal to that area would get protection from a tough to defeat police force but defeatable and none of the OMFG of Concord.

Players in the new low sec would laso be encouraged to raid the neighboring rival factions where they wont have protection and will have to deal with the police.

Those out in lawless space should also raid the low sec but hopefully with the newer envrionment of always being a pvp fit theyll be a bit tougher targets to kill at least challenging instead of easy meals.

but thats my crazy solution chances are the carrot will not draw any of the high sec pilots out to it.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#14 - 2011-11-11 06:19:08 UTC
Dr. who has lore?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#15 - 2011-11-11 06:22:13 UTC  |  Edited by: XIRUSPHERE
I saw what you proposed before about bringing concord to low sec and it made me a very sad panda. Truth be told I believe low sec is one of the few places that is getting it right at the moment. Yes I am a bit jaded after living in null multiple times and hating it, to the haters that say you can't make a living in low sec as it is right now well all I can say is my funds are not lacking.

Right now low sec is ideal for small groups of individuals to eek out an existence and keeps the big players for the most part away from taking massive dumps all over it, a lot of people like it this way. The barrier for entry is low and it teaches you to think on your feet a bit more and for someone who lived and learned there I feel nothing but paranoia and danger at every turn when I bother to rat my sec back and step into high sec again.

The only boost I see low sec needing is an end to carrier games on undock where people can put a ship with aggro into it's maintenance bays and perhaps a method for only allowing so much stuff to come through a cyno at a time to give small groups a chance against massive bored alliances who will hot drop a BC.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.
Alara IonStorm
#16 - 2011-11-11 06:23:36 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

This game has no real lore. Lore is whatever CCP wants it to be on a given day of the week. There's no retardedly long history of canon with this game, this is not Star Wars, Star Trek, or Doctor Who.

Yeah there is. There is a bunch of Novels Short Stories, Chronicles and News Articles everywhere and CCP rarely negates on it or changes it.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#17 - 2011-11-11 06:25:32 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
players who would leave highsec for lowsec if they have some control over the systems they were interested in, even if that meant conflict and warfare.


This.

I wander into a chunk of low sec every now and then that is made up of eight solar systems with two gates leading into it. One gate from high sec, the other from a neighboring low sec system. Every time I'm there, I see no more than a dozen players.....most of which are gathered in the system neighboring high sec.

Every time I think, "it should be fairly easy for a moderately large corporation to exert significant influence in these solar systems." I have yet to see it happening.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-11-11 06:37:21 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Every time I think, "it should be fairly easy for a moderately large corporation to exert significant influence in these solar systems." I have yet to see it happening.

There's no profit in doing so. The game gives no advantage to doing so, currently. So there's little reason for large corps to bother.

I'm not saying my proposal gives much more advantage, but it does offer some advantage to claiming and controlling systems. There is the e-peen factor (which cannot be understated), plus the benefits of safer travel (the police system) and planetary control.
Joseph Dreadloch
Dread Space Inc.
#19 - 2011-11-11 06:40:56 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
players who would leave highsec for lowsec if they have some control over the systems they were interested in, even if that meant conflict and warfare.


Every time I think, "it should be fairly easy for a moderately large corporation to exert significant influence in these solar systems." I have yet to see it happening.


People would not leave highsec for this, the people in highsec are carebears. All adding sov mechanics to lowsec would accomplish would be turning it into a second nullsec controlled by multi-thousand player alliances and capital blobs. You can't force carebears to PvP, and the 'moderately large corporation' you're speaking of would be a null alliance seeking to claim its lowsec exit from their nullspace, I mean what would be better then owning space right up to highsec for a null alliance?
Lord Mandelor
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#20 - 2011-11-11 06:46:45 UTC
Once again, a thinly veiled "LOOK AT MY BLOG" topic.
123Next pageLast page