EVE General Discussion

The Probe Formations that got added, making scanning accessible to everyone instead of a headache that a small few would tolerate.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the probing update counts as a nerf to highsec? Put down the crack pipe, you've had enough.

incursion running 4 titans! sounds sweet sign me up. I'd say highsec is way off when it comes to that scale of income. Corp/alliance taxes plus moon goo are probably a much more reliable source. but on the individual sources of income highsec seems way too equal or even ahead of ordinary null activities. Not to mention ratting/anom running is boring as hell.

Personally I want to see some small-medium group pve game play out in null that makes more than anoms. Probably need to tie in some sort of LP income to not make it a broken isk faucet. and as I stated earlier some specific nerfs in highsec. Null should make the most at any level. Low should have some interesting draws as low is a lot of fun, but I can't comment specifically on fw/lv5s.

You'll keep hearing it until risk vs reward is finally applied to highsec for once, or until the game finally dies.




So much wrong with this. Firstly, raw isk is not the only factor in personal income, and is in many ways the worst potential reward.

Secondly, nullsec is inarguably more dangerous than highsec. You know how you can tell? Nullsec is only "safe" as a direct result of player action. Meanwhile highsec is only "dangerous" as a direct result of player action.

One of those things is inherently safe, one of them is not.

Very good. Very good indeed, but it's not all. What else was changed? Hint: something was removed.

I quit smoking few years ago, bad habit. It was not directly nerf. It like the state of escalations now. There were changes some time ago. More people are doing them now, prices went down. For someone doing them before it's a nerf, he's not earning as much as before. Overall it's good change, anoms are worth running now, prices for modules went down so they are more in use. Fun factor is rising.

The NRDS in provi works like a charm. I set +10 standing with all dwellers and now I know who's blue with me and for whom I need to watch out.

LS has fewest systems, most of them are NS. Those numbers shows nothing. It would be better to show losses in time period.

In the meantime another Sugar Kyle blog update. Keyword: missions.
Looking at the taboo
Is it possible from technical side to have procedurally generated sites? In other places than deadspace complexes?

What counter evidence or analysis? His whole statistic shows what? He gather data and interpreted results wrong. That most of ISK lost is in LS? Wrong. LS has the fewest systems, you can't do losses per number of systems. You may drown in lake that has 20 cm average deep. What that tell you about lake itself? And I don't re-direct, whole thread is about hisec and in most cases it's about "bring us more missions".

I wonder, did you adjust your numbers for population density?

Secondly, the major issue I see with your claim is that, according to the destruction picture anyway, that highsec is "dangerous" only in a small few outliers. Half a dozen trade hubs and chokepoint systems, and barring those highsec would not be on the map.

You can't claim that the average system in highsec sees three times as much destruction as a nullsec system. Simply because of the vast differences in population density (and therefore traffic), and because highsec is hugely inflated by a small few outliers.

The way to fix PvE (especially in HS), is by adding more PvP to it.

Before you get a knee jerk reaction, let me specify the terms:
PvE: Competition and conflict against AI/NPC systems.
PvP: Competition and conflict against players.

PvP IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO SHIP DESTRUCTION.
There are many other forms of PvP.

Examples:
-Station trading, is categorically PvP. Though there are NPC related costs, these are undynamic, uncompetetive and unconflicting.
Simply skilling will mitigate these. These is no conflict/competituon. Just a flat rate of cost/capacity depending on whether youve skilled or not. The NPC/AI does not compete with you, in anyway.
-Competition for Exploration sites is PvP. In HS and everywhere else. Even if you do not fire one shot at a sig invader, you are nonetheless in competition and conflict with another player for the sites rewards.
-If Ice Fields where changed to a random/probed spawn, this would constitute more PvP in an otherwise essentially PvE activity (of mining the field itself). You would be competing with other players, in conflict to their interest, inorder to find and reach those sites before other players.

The crucial element, in activities both PvE and PvP, so as to forestall boredom, and more importantly, to create content, is DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, which are responsive and adaptive to a given set of circumstances, rather than fixed and static.

Yes, CCP could, potentially, increase the dynamism of NPC/AI systems, such as by:
-Including random, unpredictable spawns in Incursions/Missions etc.
-Integrate NPC Empire behaviour based on player activity indexes (in various forms) in their space.
---->Thereafter make NPC corp standings dynamic towards each other, within that space.
-So that Empires, as NPC elements, wax and wane based on player activity vs the NPC elements of that space, such as in their mission payouts, their trading costs, their bounties etc.
-So that an Empire and NPC corp (which assign missions in particular) with less activity on its indexes, pays more for those activities, than one with an abundance.
In this way the NPC/AI ENVIRONMENT (note, still not PvE), becomes a PvP consideration, in terms of where you go in Empire spaces, for greater profit, against others doing likewise PvE activities elsewhere and where YOU are.

There are many options for this, but all require rather large amounts of work in actual development in changing such central mechanics of the games NPC/AI systems. I believe these would be worth it, but they take a lot of time and consideration to apply properly. The NPC/AI in EVE is lamentably nonreactive and undynamic.

But.

A much simpler solution, and which utilises a pre-existing dynamic and unpredictable resource, is PLAYERS.
If it is at all possible to increase player competition and conflict, it should be done.

People have trouble distinguishing between the games mechanics, and player interaction, as PvE and PvP respectively.
PvP is thr overarching, and pervasive element. PvE merely floats ontop of this background in the form of specific isolated circumstances in which there are no other players involved. Even that, is at best, temporary, since player aggression, competition and conflict are nonetheless always a possibility.

An example of this, and how PvP overarchs PvE, and how player based dynamics are better and easier to enable than NPC ones (and nonetheless pervade PvE, as PvP), consider the following:
-Increase the security standing loss on illegal actions in HS. One illegal ship kill to roughly -5 standing, on multiplicative scale, as compared against targets standing (as killing low standing players should defacto concern a lower sec standing loss still).
---Result: Illegal players will go red, faster, universally, in HS space, and thereby PLAYERS, rather than CONCORD/faction police, will be the arbitrating dynamic. CONCORD wont kill you for being red. Faction police will (inneffectivelt) harass you, but its PLAYERS that will blow you up for returning to HS once you are pronounced red per security standing.
-----Therafter the illegal red player must return to lower security space, and engage in PvE inorder to raise their sec, and whereupon they again provide content for other aggresive players.

In this example, an otherwise entirely PvE competition/conflict (as vs faction police on pure sec standing, and CONCORD only after an act), PvP, players, becomes the dynamic and decisive factor.

Though PvE and PvP exist concurrently in this game, PvP is the fundamental source of dynamic content within it, as the most dynamic and unpredictable system that will IN ALL CASES remain so, even if CCP makes sweeping changes to NPC systems.

Even then, its still PLAYERS, and hence by definition, PvP (as conflict and competition against other players), that will define the parameters and extent of that NPC systems dynamism.

I saw someone else do the 'per system' thing back when Quant published his devblog, and it was stupid then. High Sec only has something like 17% of EVE systems, the rest is low/null/WH, and EVER other section of EVe space has a much smaller character population than high sec.

What that means is that an individual character is much much much more likely to face a situation where ship loss is possible outside of high sec than inside of it. Add to that that Quant's presentation Also included PVE loses and that much if the so called 'destruction of 'noobs losing Condors', it all means that what you believe here is incorrect.

Tl;DR, Null has a fraction of high sec's population but kills several times more ships than high sec. By definition, Null is more dangerous than high (and close to tied with low sec, per capita, WH space is the most dangerous place in EVE).

Like i said, Insane. The fact that people would dial 911 in BH and be less likely to do so in Compton doesn't change basic fact: more people die in Compton than in BH. Even controlling for popuation (BH is 1/3rd the sized of Compton), Compton is vastly more dangerous.

In EVE, non-war aggression creates a heavy automated response in high sec, a much lesser response in low, and no response in null/WH. High sec is the mechanically safest place in EVE. It has the most population, and yet EVERY other part of space outpaces it on per capita pvp kills.

The ONLY way High Sec is more dangerous is when it comes to starter level PVE, and that's only because 1 starter type mission REQUIRES your ship to explode, which is why as early as 4 years ago the most killed ship was the Condor.


The statement "high sec is more dangerous than null" is a bald faced (and self serving) lie, it takes an Olympic level of mental gymnastics and dishonesty to type it let alone believe it, and that level of dishonesty coming from grown men regarding something as inconsequential as a video game is the truly frightening thing about all of this.