These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#121 - 2014-01-10 01:07:44 UTC
they would 12 box mining ships instead of 10 boxing them
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#122 - 2014-01-10 01:36:30 UTC
Think about it. EVE is a niche product and is one of the most unforgiving hardcore games out there.

Do you think making it any more hardcore would attract new players that aren't already playing?

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#123 - 2014-01-10 01:40:02 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Do you think making it any more hardcore would attract new players that aren't already playing?

Yes.

This game's utterly unforgiving nature is exactly what I have always liked about it. It's what I liked about it before I fully understood it, and everything that ever happened that tried but couldn't drive me away made me like it more.
Deunan Tenephais
#124 - 2014-01-10 01:48:59 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Think about it. EVE is a niche product and is one of the most unforgiving hardcore games out there.

Do you think making it any more hardcore would attract new players that aren't already playing?

EVE is not hardcore, some of the player base is.

For EVE to be hardcore it would need...oh yes, permadeath.

No clones anymore, period.

And no decrease in training time, of course.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#125 - 2014-01-10 01:52:23 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Quote:
Beyond low/null seccers' alts, highsec is not populated excusively with carebears you know, there are other kind of people.


Correct. While highsec may not be exclusively carebears, carebears do almost exclusively live in highsec. Kinda of a square-is-a-rectangle sort of thing.


Yea, because countless threads about AFK cloaking are constantly made exclusively by hisec careberas Big smile

Also i should tell you some funny stories about local emo-rages during our nullsec roams Big smile




Yeah I once sneaked out of a bubble camp in nullsec with an alt running a cloaked dessie and the tears from the gate campers were both funny and sad. Funny that this leet PVPer would even have tears, sad that such people exist per the rhetoric and display of personality.

Meanwhile, I have had small gangs run from my battle cruiser when clearly they had plenty of time to wreck my ship THEN JUMP RIGHT BACK INTO THE WORMHOLE THEY WERE NEXT TO. It was 5 to 1 and.... all of them ran away.

Why? Because I had the power, or so they thought, it was a pre-odyssey exploration ship that you kill with a T1 frigate, to "take one of them down with me" and oh Heaven forbid a loss of .001 green on the KB. And this is not different from some highsec carebear raging from some .001 ISK less yield in their wallet. The top complaint about lowsec is "you can't get a fair fight". Well, duh. You won't get anybody obsessed with a statistic to the point of both fear and rage ("carebears" as described) do be sporting or take risks now, will we?



Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Jax Zaden
Prometheus Deep Core Mining
#126 - 2014-01-10 01:54:23 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:


Due to the rapid deflation of the market, low and nullsec players find it much easier to use ingame methods to make ISK
(as their main competition, the botting/multiboxing afk/semi afk hisec players' advantage has been nullified.)



I'm curious how you think deflation would happen - making hisec less safe would result in reduced volume of things like minerals. Since most pvp people say that hate mining (so they wouldn't mine), that would mean that demand would increase (more losses from less safe hisec), supply would decrease (less yield/hour from less safe hisec) meaning prices would go up across the board.

Overall, this is just one aspect of your mistaken bad idea.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#127 - 2014-01-10 02:04:13 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because the game isn't all PvP. Refer to recent CSM minutes where they discuss player retention.
The players that stay the best are those who's early time in the game is PvE. People who get into PvP fast often tend to leave fast.
Nice try.

New players can't afford to be able to PvP for long periods of time, they run out of money then they quit because PvP for most players is an isk-destructive activity, and lets face it, some people just don't enjoy PvE. The only way to solve this very real issue is to make PvP more accessible and rewarding, and that might involve rebalancing other types of gameplay (highsec pve) to make it more viable.

If you read the CSM notes you might find something else:

Quote:
Affinity referred to some recent detailed research CCP has done which indicates that the players who stick around longest tend to do everything, while pure PvE players tend to churn out of the game.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#128 - 2014-01-10 02:10:22 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Because the game isn't all PvP. Refer to recent CSM minutes where they discuss player retention.
The players that stay the best are those who's early time in the game is PvE. People who get into PvP fast often tend to leave fast.
Nice try.

New players can't afford to be able to PvP for long periods of time, they run out of money then they quit because PvP for most players is an isk-destructive activity, and lets face it, some people just don't enjoy PvE. The only way to solve this very real issue is to make PvP more accessible and rewarding, and that might involve rebalancing other types of gameplay (highsec pve) to make it more viable.

If you read the CSM notes you might find something else:

Quote:
Affinity referred to some recent detailed research CCP has done which indicates that the players who stick around longest tend to do everything, while pure PvE players tend to churn out of the game.

Which,..... actually supports what I said. That the game isn't all PvP. Nowhere did I say that the game was nothing to do with PvP at all. Just that it isn't all about PvP. So nerfing highsec destroys an area of the game for those wanting to get away from PvP, makes people leave early a lot more often since they will be forced into PvP early on, and reduces the range of activities available overall which hurts player retention three ways.
You can't make PvP more rewarding or you lead to the issue of farming each other for profit using cheap ships. 'I kill you five times, I can buy six cheap ships, you kill me six times, you can now buy seven cheap ships. and so forth'. Which is why FW kills don't pay out more than they do.
And High Sec income is already in line with low, null & WH income in terms of being lower per account in a normal situation.

Doesn't mean it can't all be tweaked to make it better, Null does have some density issues, and even with my limited Dev experience I could design a much better PvE system for all area's of space than EVE has. But it wouldn't involve nerfing high sec to do so, as that would be the wrong approach and a very self destructive one for EVE and CCP.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#129 - 2014-01-10 02:17:08 UTC
Quote:
But it wouldn't involve nerfing high sec to do so, as that would be the wrong approach and a very self destructive one for EVE and CCP.


You still really haven't said why in that whole post. I mean, aside from the usual "teh newbs will quit!" argument(which is nonsense and always has been), there really is no reasoning available that doesn't sound like someone trying to protect their golden goose.

So, do tell.

Why would it be such a bad thing?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2014-01-10 02:17:32 UTC
Deunan Tenephais wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Think about it. EVE is a niche product and is one of the most unforgiving hardcore games out there.

Do you think making it any more hardcore would attract new players that aren't already playing?

EVE is not hardcore, some of the player base is.

For EVE to be hardcore it would need...oh yes, permadeath.

No clones anymore, period.

And no decrease in training time, of course.


Actually making the T3 skill loss on death apply to all death would make the game far more interesting.

Currently death is just an ISK loss and hence meaningless for everyone over 3 months old.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#131 - 2014-01-10 02:35:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
I got to page 5 of this thread before I stopped. I'll probably go back and read the rest because I like reading the varying opinions of everyone. It amazes me how vibrant and diverse this community is.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have been a hisec mission runner for almost 6 years. Tried a PvP Corp for a brief time and found it really wasn't my thing.

I get the impression that CCP, despite the rhetoric of HTFU and dark, cold, harsh, etc. actually, whether intentioned or not, created a game with a broad base of appeal. Nerfing hisec (and guessing from OP who has also sought advice on becoming a "warlord") would lessen that broad base of appeal. To what extent is difficult to say. I grow more and more weary of hisec bears lobbying for changes that only benefit their style of play. On the other end of that spectrum though, I can't appreciate the lobbying for free-for-all PvP in hisec either.

I think that the game has a good balance as it is. I fear that people that lobby for these changes don't consider carefully enough the long term consequences of the changes they crusade for. As an example, years before my time it was possible to tank CONCORD, miners were upset that they were disadvantaged by this mechanic and thus lobbied to buff CONCORD. It was this change that gave birth to the suicide ganker that they now demonize.

I think we all love the game as it is. Occasionally and with varying frequency, something happens that affects us personally and we rattle our sabers in protest without giving a lot of thought to the impetus of the saber rattling. Personally, I have always tried to use these occasions as a driver for change in my play and not in the play of others.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2014-01-10 02:37:07 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Actually making the T3 skill loss on death apply to all death would make the game far more interesting.

No it wouldn't. People would just PVP less.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#133 - 2014-01-10 02:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: EI Digin
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Which,..... actually supports what I said. That the game isn't all PvP. Nowhere did I say that the game was nothing to do with PvP at all. Just that it isn't all about PvP.
But the reason it can't be all PvP is not because it's not fun or you burn out, it's because PvP is generally not self-sustainable on its own, therefore not a preferred or even viable career choice for many players. Since PvP is definitely a valid activity in the sandbox, it should be self-sustainable. Risk put on by players should also be rewarded. If this has to come at the (slight) expense of others who have enjoyed the benefits of a fundamentally broken system so be it.

People are currently able to make it all about PvE, why can't people make it all about PvP? Or have a little bit of both, where both activities earn you money instead of one being a revenue and the other an expense? This is a sandbox game.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So nerfing highsec destroys an area of the game
Again, no one is advocating for the destruction of highsec. Your playstyle is still valid. It just shouldn't be as rewarding as it is, because it's causing detrimental effects to the way other people enjoy the game. And a rebalance of this will not destroy your playstyle. The rocks will still be out there. You can still shoot the red crosses.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
You can't make PvP more rewarding or you lead to the issue of farming each other for profit using cheap ships. 'I kill you five times, I can buy six cheap ships, you kill me six times, you can now buy seven cheap ships. and so forth'. Which is why FW kills don't pay out more than they do.
There are ways to make PvP rewarding that don't involve generating infinite isk. By the way, most ISK and LP generated from FW comes from PvE activity.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And High Sec income is already in line with low, null & WH income in terms of being lower per account in a normal situation.
You are strictly talking about PvE. But still you are wrong, because in most cases it's not worth the risk to go out to lowsec or highsec to PvE.
dilly nay
State War Academy
Caldari State
#134 - 2014-01-10 02:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: dilly nay
Op fails to realize that without hi sec all the hi sec players would quit.

Hi sec isn't the safety net to experience so many people presume it to be. The agenda for setting a standard to what is valuable is only conceivable to a selfish nature. Players dont play in Hi sec simply because Hi sec is there. No, Hi sec is there and so these people have been provided the opportunity to play. These two realizations are vastly different from one another. You fail to see how petty your reasoning is when you make the statement "Eve would be a better game without Hi sec and as a consequence be funner." because the truth is Eve would be exactly as it is now within Low/Null sec. Nothing more.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#135 - 2014-01-10 03:03:42 UTC
EVE would lose half its membership as all the low-sec and null-sec members players have no further need of their high-sec alts.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2014-01-10 03:04:50 UTC
dilly nay wrote:
Op fails to realize that without hi sec all the hi sec players would quit.

Hi sec isn't the safety net to experience so many people presume it to be. The agenda for setting a standard to what is valuable is only conceivable to a selfish nature. Players dont play in Hi sec simply because Hi sec is there. No, Hi sec is there and so these people have been provided the opportunity to play. These two realizations are vastly different from one another. You fail to see how petty your reasoning is when you make the statement "Eve would be a better game without Hi sec and as a consequence be funner." because the truth is Eve would be exactly as it is now within Low/Null sec. Nothing more.


The issue seems to be that even the mere fact that casual players who log on occasionally whilst minding the kids and do some semi AFK mining exist at all anywhere in the game seems to totally ruin the game experience for some people who presumably get off on playing " teh mos' aw3some h@rdcore PvP sp@cegame evah " :D

Maybe we need some sort of rift that permanently prevents travel from hisec to low/null and visa versa and block all communications :D

Then both sides can be naively unaware the other lot even exists.
dilly nay
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-01-10 03:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: dilly nay
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
dilly nay wrote:
Op fails to realize that without hi sec all the hi sec players would quit.

Hi sec isn't the safety net to experience so many people presume it to be. The agenda for setting a standard to what is valuable is only conceivable to a selfish nature. Players dont play in Hi sec simply because Hi sec is there. No, Hi sec is there and so these people have been provided the opportunity to play. These two realizations are vastly different from one another. You fail to see how petty your reasoning is when you make the statement "Eve would be a better game without Hi sec and as a consequence be funner." because the truth is Eve would be exactly as it is now within Low/Null sec. Nothing more.


The issue seems to be that even the mere fact that casual players who log on occasionally whilst minding the kids and do some semi AFK mining exist at all anywhere in the game seems to totally ruin the game experience for some people who presumably get off on playing " teh mos' aw3some h@rdcore PvP sp@cegame evah " :D

Maybe we need some sort of rift that permanently prevents travel from hisec to low/null and visa versa and block all communications :D

Then both sides can be naively unaware the other lot even exists.


Your first statement was scratching at the answer but you completely derailed after your satirized quote.

The issue is that psychology is involved and people have a tendency to establish a bar of value in order to measure their own progress. OP intends to propose the idea of removing Hi sec because OP wants to establish a common ground for his own accomplishments.

For example... removing Hi sec so that there are no penalties for Pvp. This forces players to pay attention to Pvp allowing OP to then measure their own progress because OP already focuses on Pvp. With everybody focused on the same category he now has a common goal to rise out of. Sort of like a Star which burns brightest compared to every other star in the night sky. However, OP's problem is that some Stars shine brighter with a different background. So you have people vouching for how much fun "AFK mining" is and players like OP are now forced to make a decision and criticize or question their own choices vs. the testimony of others.

It's the failure to realize this which allows perfectly nice people to say arrogantly shallow things in the face of their own selfish desire.

ps. we dont need "some sort of rift". You are creating a mystery where none exists. (there is no problem to be solved)
Deunan Tenephais
#138 - 2014-01-10 03:54:08 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The issue seems to be that even the mere fact that casual players who log on occasionally whilst minding the kids and do some semi AFK mining exist at all anywhere in the game seems to totally ruin the game experience for some people who presumably get off on playing " teh mos' aw3some h@rdcore PvP sp@cegame evah " :D

Maybe we need some sort of rift that permanently prevents travel from hisec to low/null and visa versa and block all communications :D

Then both sides can be naively unaware the other lot even exists.

You're asking for CCP to open a PVE server ?
There's gonna be riots in Jita's streets if you do that, you know.

Kimmi Chan wrote:
I got to page 5 of this thread before I stopped. I'll probably go back and read the rest because I like reading the varying opinions of everyone. It amazes me how vibrant and diverse this community is.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have been a hisec mission runner for almost 6 years. Tried a PvP Corp for a brief time and found it really wasn't my thing.

I get the impression that CCP, despite the rhetoric of HTFU and dark, cold, harsh, etc. actually, whether intentioned or not, created a game with a broad base of appeal. Nerfing hisec (and guessing from OP who has also sought advice on becoming a "warlord") would lessen that broad base of appeal. To what extent is difficult to say. I grow more and more weary of hisec bears lobbying for changes that only benefit their style of play. On the other end of that spectrum though, I can't appreciate the lobbying for free-for-all PvP in hisec either.

I think that the game has a good balance as it is. I fear that people that lobby for these changes don't consider carefully enough the long term consequences of the changes they crusade for. As an example, years before my time it was possible to tank CONCORD, miners were upset that they were disadvantaged by this mechanic and thus lobbied to buff CONCORD. It was this change that gave birth to the suicide ganker that they now demonize.

I think we all love the game as it is. Occasionally and with varying frequency, something happens that affects us personally and we rattle our sabers in protest without giving a lot of thought to the impetus of the saber rattling. Personally, I have always tried to use these occasions as a driver for change in my play and not in the play of others.

Mainly agree with what you wrote here, I too am pretty tired of both groups of lobbyists and I've been in the game far less than you.
I'm not even sure if these people really think the game will be "funnier" with the changes they want or if they are only leeches trying to turn CCP's head to get some unfair advantage.

Frankly, they get on my nerves.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#139 - 2014-01-10 04:03:45 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Maybe we need some sort of rift that permanently prevents travel from hisec to low/null and visa versa and block all communications :D

Then both sides can be naively unaware the other lot even exists.


Eve-tima Online?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2014-01-10 04:04:12 UTC
dilly nay wrote:
Op fails to realize that without hi sec all the hi sec players would quit.

Hi sec isn't the safety net to experience so many people presume it to be. The agenda for setting a standard to what is valuable is only conceivable to a selfish nature. Players dont play in Hi sec simply because Hi sec is there. No, Hi sec is there and so these people have been provided the opportunity to play. These two realizations are vastly different from one another. You fail to see how petty your reasoning is when you make the statement "Eve would be a better game without Hi sec and as a consequence be funner." because the truth is Eve would be exactly as it is now within Low/Null sec. Nothing more.

Your entire post is invalidated by the fact that nowhere does he say that highsec should be removed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)