These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec - Newb Training Area or the only space worth playing in?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-11-05 20:58:53 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Aoife Fraoch wrote:
What does CCP the business get from encouraging people to be active outside of high sec beyond the current levels?

How about the game actually reaching critical mass, where growth-spurts from BR-5's or 'This is EvE' videos aren't wasted when the newbro lands in hisec on a pve hamster wheel, and they unsub out of either boredom or feeling like they were bait-and-switched?

"You sold me big space battles, but handed me pve missions and a mining lasor.."

There is a big paradox today between what sells EvE, and what typical players get for the first six months to a year wallowing around in hisec. Sure, the lucky ones join Pandemic Horde or Brave Newbies and escape, many are not so lucky.

CCP was bold with nullsec changes, time to be equally bold with hisec.

F



I bolded the important bit which lines up with a point I was making earlier.

I am not sure that nerfs will accomplish the change the OP wants to see. CCP's nerfs very rarely result in the outcome they want, and previous downgrades to high sec income (except incursions, though only a very small portion of the player base run those) have not populated higher risk space.

The point I was making earlier is that its about support networks. Most of high sec won't move to higher risk space because for the most part they play solo, and they will probably just die in a fire. Where as in my experience of EVE, you can even get pve and industry focused players into higher risk space, if they are doing so in a group and especially if they are being led by a more experienced player.

Personally I think the answer is more finding better ways to get people to play together and allowing for the in-game termination of ineffective/useless/do-nothing corps. I think that once people are confident that they can tackle the larger challenges in the game, they will explore the riskier parts. Just nerfing high sec won't help, it has not in the past, and I doubt this will change.
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#62 - 2015-11-05 21:40:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Yes, it's evident the Clint Eastwood lovin' side of some folks tends to make the tough tawkin' wannabees stand out more when polling the population. It's always shocking, and amusing as well, when the top boyz fall for the minority making the noise and become blind to the ones who are actually buttering the bread.

We all hope catastrophe isn't how the gravity of their miscalculations finally occurs to these boyz - as the patience their more dignified brethren have for their MISTAKES runs out in the end. Then, we could just be dealing with folks who really would cut off their noses just to spite their faces. It could happen!

(ummm....wouldn't be the first time.)

There just isn't anything that can be said!
Han Chang
a Blueprint Holding Corporation
#63 - 2015-11-05 22:08:55 UTC
We need PvE content that can be ran in standard PvP fits.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#64 - 2015-11-05 22:38:26 UTC
Han Chang wrote:
We need PvE content that can be ran in standard PvP fits.
I'd go even further than that.

I've stated this before but I feel it's worth repeating. One of the fundamental flaws in the mechanics of this game is that there is even such a thing as separate PVE/PVP fits. Most people start this game with PVE content that does absolutely nothing to prepare them for the PVP experience.

All PVE content (missions, ratting, mining, incursions, exploration, etc) should be reworked to require a PVP fit. As I've said many times, EVE is two games shoehorned into the same box. That has to end if the game is to progress. All A.I. should act similar to players and require the same fits and strategies to defeat.

If PVE was training people for the fun part of the game, then we'd have a lot less divisiveness in the player base. I'm not saying it would end crying, just that there'd be a lot less of it.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#65 - 2015-11-05 23:31:20 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Han Chang wrote:
We need PvE content that can be ran in standard PvP fits.
I'd go even further than that.

I've stated this before but I feel it's worth repeating. One of the fundamental flaws in the mechanics of this game is that there is even such a thing as separate PVE/PVP fits. Most people start this game with PVE content that does absolutely nothing to prepare them for the PVP experience.

All PVE content (missions, ratting, mining, incursions, exploration, etc) should be reworked to require a PVP fit. As I've said many times, EVE is two games shoehorned into the same box. That has to end if the game is to progress. All A.I. should act similar to players and require the same fits and strategies to defeat.

If PVE was training people for the fun part of the game, then we'd have a lot less divisiveness in the player base. I'm not saying it would end crying, just that there'd be a lot less of it.

Mr Epeen Cool


I would have zero interest in PVE if it worked that way. EVE's PVE is cool because it lets you tinker wayyyy more than PVP does, and for some of us playing mad scientist with PVE fits and tactics is what keeps us PVEing. "PVP-lite" pve would end up boiling down to the same few effective 'doctrines' as PVP (and Burner Missions) do. No thanks.

Knowing my 'people' like I do, making all PVE look like PVP would have the same result as trying to force people out of high sec; nothing (but perhaps people quitting, honestly I would).
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#66 - 2015-11-05 23:40:15 UTC
If you are not in a big sov holding alliance there is no way to make decent isk in null for 2 main reasons, firstly you can't get to the far reaches easily enough, jump fatigue didn't help this. And without ihubs and the upgrades ratting/running anoms/mining isn't worth it.
Doddy
Excidium.
#67 - 2015-11-06 00:02:07 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Take some guy to the top of the Eiffle Tower.

Tell him to jump and when he says no you hit him with a bat. Tell him again and when he says no, hit him with a lead pipe. When he still says no, you pull out a gun and kill him.

In the end, you didn't get him to jump, did you?

So if you can't force people to do stuff they really don't want to in real life, what makes you think they won't simply quit when you try to do it in a game.

Trying to force people into low/null that don't want to be in low/null will accomplish nothing but adding to the subscriber base of other MMOs. No matter how many times you beat a kitten, it's not going to turn into a wolf.

Mr Epeen Cool


Human psychology being what it is you would be surprised how many people would jump. They just need to believe you would pull the trigger at which point their survival instinct will tell them "hey, there is a1 in a million chance we could grab the side of the tower on the way down".
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#68 - 2015-11-06 00:48:07 UTC
They tell you trust no one.

Then they tell you to join a corp.

Come here go away much.
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2015-11-06 00:54:10 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
They tell you trust no one.

Then they tell you to join a corp.

Come here go away much.

Pro tip, you can both join a Corp and manage your risk profile! Even more so with a Corp safety button!
Justin Cody
War Firm
#70 - 2015-11-06 02:48:59 UTC
Zakks wrote:
Why would I give up a 1-bedroom apartment in Manhattan for a shack in the Bronx?

Also, the overall % of Highseccers that actually run incursions is incredibly small by my observations. Nerfing or completely eliminating them will have almost no effect on the masses (or me).

Lastly, I think the trade hubs are the reason Highsec is so popular. If you could find a way to move the trade hubs then people will follow the trade.


like I suggested...redirect the gates. separate the empires. long haul freighters would need an escort through low sec or even intervening null sec. Group content!
Justin Cody
War Firm
#71 - 2015-11-06 02:51:04 UTC
Tanthos wrote:
Nerf bubbles. Nerf gate camps. They are what keep people out of null.


Anchored bubbles do need a nerf (24 hour time limit) like most of the new deployable structures. It hinders hunting in null sec as well when there is a 5x5x5 grid (125) bubbles on a gate. (oh my frame rate).

you can't nerf gate camps - that is player content. most systems are empty and there are many wormholes around camps.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#72 - 2015-11-06 02:56:01 UTC
erg cz wrote:
Justin Cody wrote:

What would make you leave high sec in general (without feeling the urge to quit EVE)?

I have ideas but I am honestly curious to hear from the perpetual high sec player.


I am exactly that kind of player. And you know what - I do PvE when I do not feel to run into PvP. Making ISKor even simply traveling in low / null sec is PvP even if you do not want it. But I do PvP when I feel like and go to low sec for this. Null is empty or blobed. FW is way how to get at least some chance to fight with match making, where you cn warp out from the blob entering your PLEX or laugh at T3 destroyer when you sitting in novice plex. You can not be surprised by recon in small plex etc... You see where I am going? You want more PvP in null? Put at least some match making mechanics in there. Fair fights is all we need. Or we do not - it is a sandbox. Eve is unique exactly because of the blob friendly approach.

1. Let me PvE in null without PvP, when I do not want PvP. Sort of anomalies with collapsing entrance once you passed in would do. Something with unique sights would drag in PvE oriented players even if ISK income will not be that high.
2. Let me solo PvP with at least some chance to get fair fight when I am ready and want PvP. Null arena with drifters as judge or whatever.
3. Make more high sec / null sec gates. You want ppl in null - you should give them access to it. One ever camped gate per region is simply not enough.
4. Make more NPC null regions. People do play solo for family / time / social / historical reasons. You want solo players in null - let them dock.


1) No
2) Use scouts (alts or friends)
3) Maybe more entrances not a bad idea - perhaps just redirect some existing entrances
4) No - syndicate, venal, great wildlands, stain all suck - too safe. Curse is a weird exception sometimes but it can still suck when everyone is docked. Outer Ring/Fountain Core also suck for content and the same goes for pure bling (Mordus) and Geminate (Sisters). There are plenty of npc sov areas as you can see. We don't need more.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#73 - 2015-11-06 02:57:27 UTC
Intar Medris wrote:
The rewards are there but not enough for most to justify the move to null sec. WHs are much more appealing than SOV Null sec. Players are literally making billions a week. Players have greater control over their income in WH than null sec. Null sec the Alliance controls the most lucrative resource, moon goo. Null has more cons than pros.


billions per hour actually...certain players make 2.4b/hour.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#74 - 2015-11-06 03:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Cody
Jenn aSide wrote:


Quote:
Some people play in high sec because that's where their 'targets' are, and others play there for other reasons. I played in high sec because it offers the hands-down best "risk to isk" ratio in the game (as you can see here and here). It's really insane, a single pilot in a Mach doing level 3s in high sec protected by CONCORD can make almost as much (only 4 mil isk per hour less) than the SAME hull with a single pilot in null sec where there is no automated npc protective response. And what happens in the 2nd link with burner mission blitzing isn't even physically possible in sov null (it is in npc null, just unlikely). And don't even get me started on High sec Incursions.

The only way I was able to move my primary isk making operation out of high sec was when CCP accidentally fixed null by upping the "anom to expedition" escalation chances (which lets people like me farm 7 and 8/10 DEDs and match what we could get farming high sec incursions (but STILL not even close to what you can do blitzing burners). But still the imbalances caused by high sec mechanics are glaring, and often dismissed by irrational high sec partisans because of all the Goons flying AFK ships on alts all day long (generating a lot of semi passive isk that makes null sec look like what it's generally not; a super lucrative place to play).

This game is long overdue for a rewards re-balance, but it isn't going to happen because CCP isn't really aware of the imbalances, as seen by how they are about to add a Tribute system to the game which is a really dumb mistake. Not only will that system reward people for staying in high sec and facing little to no risk, it's going to reward those aforementioned afk goons for AFKtaring the game economy to crap (Pith loot is so cheap it might as well be dirt lol). CCP does many things well, but rewards balancing is not one of them.



Yeah which is part of why I want to target incursions and level 4's. Level 3 missions I'm not fussed about. It is good mid-game content and is more of a grind than 4's.

I want to boost non-fw space with pirate enclaves where you can start your npc mission running for them before venturing into npc null.

I want to redirect gates to make empire travel riskier and create more choke points and separate empires further to create a more diverse trade hub system. Imagine each region having a high sec core and low/null as transfer points. You might bet really good low sec trade hubs as a result.

In null sec I want to see the anomalies made more dangerous - more pointing and webbing and in-fact warp SCRAMBLING ships. You can push up the value a little bit. Also running frequent anoms should make the military index higher (better quality) but far fewer anoms as the low ranking pirates avoid being killed for no good reason - some diminishing return mechanic based on true sec.

In W-space I wanna see drifters appear on shattered WH's like high sec rats do. Give us some more challenges there. Hell have random drifters appear in w-space data/relic sites sometimes. Make it interesting. The cap changes in spring will fix most of the hero dreadnought tactics.

W-space should be all about group content as well as the best true sec in sov space.

I want to fix it all and make it harder at all levels not just high sec. There are issues with war decs being ineffective since there is no surrender system or tribute system so corps can either escape a war dec or force concessions out of an enemy but that is a different issue.
Xan Pendragon
Transcendere
#75 - 2015-11-06 03:26:37 UTC
Scrap gate camps. Or make them so highly likely to fail that only the very best can make them work.
Kinete Jenius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2015-11-06 03:50:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kinete Jenius
Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Aoife Fraoch wrote:
What does CCP the business get from encouraging people to be active outside of high sec beyond the current levels?

How about the game actually reaching critical mass, where growth-spurts from BR-5's or 'This is EvE' videos aren't wasted when the newbro lands in hisec on a pve hamster wheel, and they unsub out of either boredom or feeling like they were bait-and-switched?

"You sold me big space battles, but handed me pve missions and a mining lasor.."

There is a big paradox today between what sells EvE, and what typical players get for the first six months to a year wallowing around in hisec. Sure, the lucky ones join Pandemic Horde or Brave Newbies and escape, many are not so lucky.

CCP was bold with nullsec changes, time to be equally bold with hisec.

F



I bolded the important bit which lines up with a point I was making earlier.

I am not sure that nerfs will accomplish the change the OP wants to see. CCP's nerfs very rarely result in the outcome they want, and previous downgrades to high sec income (except incursions, though only a very small portion of the player base run those) have not populated higher risk space.

The point I was making earlier is that its about support networks. Most of high sec won't move to higher risk space because for the most part they play solo, and they will probably just die in a fire. Where as in my experience of EVE, you can even get pve and industry focused players into higher risk space, if they are doing so in a group and especially if they are being led by a more experienced player.

Personally I think the answer is more finding better ways to get people to play together and allowing for the in-game termination of ineffective/useless/do-nothing corps. I think that once people are confident that they can tackle the larger challenges in the game, they will explore the riskier parts. Just nerfing high sec won't help, it has not in the past, and I doubt this will change.
Incursions as they stand today are nerfed in income compared to the days when you could blitz sites. CCP also directly nerfed payout a while back too. Some people whined about the nerfs but the community kept on running at reduced rates of income.

Mr Epeen wrote:
Han Chang wrote:
We need PvE content that can be ran in standard PvP fits.
I'd go even further than that.

I've stated this before but I feel it's worth repeating. One of the fundamental flaws in the mechanics of this game is that there is even such a thing as separate PVE/PVP fits. Most people start this game with PVE content that does absolutely nothing to prepare them for the PVP experience.

All PVE content (missions, ratting, mining, incursions, exploration, etc) should be reworked to require a PVP fit. As I've said many times, EVE is two games shoehorned into the same box. That has to end if the game is to progress. All A.I. should act similar to players and require the same fits and strategies to defeat.

If PVE was training people for the fun part of the game, then we'd have a lot less divisiveness in the player base. I'm not saying it would end crying, just that there'd be a lot less of it.

Mr Epeen Cool

You do realize you're asking for an almost impossible thing right? Meta in PVP changes rapidly at times which means the missions would have to be constantly reviewed and redone. CCP would also have to be constantly reviewing how people are fighting. Then there's the issue with writing an AI that is capable of fighting like a player. You're asking a lot man.

Burners were CCP's best attempt at doing PVE that plays like PVP and you can see how that ended up.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#77 - 2015-11-06 06:31:50 UTC
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#78 - 2015-11-06 08:20:54 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Han Chang wrote:
We need PvE content that can be ran in standard PvP fits.
I'd go even further than that.

I've stated this before but I feel it's worth repeating. One of the fundamental flaws in the mechanics of this game is that there is even such a thing as separate PVE/PVP fits. Most people start this game with PVE content that does absolutely nothing to prepare them for the PVP experience.

All PVE content (missions, ratting, mining, incursions, exploration, etc) should be reworked to require a PVP fit. As I've said many times, EVE is two games shoehorned into the same box. That has to end if the game is to progress. All A.I. should act similar to players and require the same fits and strategies to defeat.

If PVE was training people for the fun part of the game, then we'd have a lot less divisiveness in the player base. I'm not saying it would end crying, just that there'd be a lot less of it.

Mr Epeen Cool


What a terribly boring and repetitive task this would turn PVE into, no thanks!
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#79 - 2015-11-06 08:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Justin Cody wrote:
Judging by various activity maps the vast majority of players in EVE live in high sec. This is everyone from casual players to serious pvpers.

Industry is widely available
Research Facilities are Widely Available
The Cost is relatively low
The Risk is low
Between missions, complexes and incursions - getting loads of ISK has never been easier.

1) players should (within reason) be allowed to inhabit EVE where they please and play the game in a manner to their individual liking.
2) CCP wants more people in low and null-sec space - which is virtually empty in most systems most of the time
3) Faction Warfare has pushed some into low sec and I would consider that a successful feature at this point
4) Null Sec still empty most of the time and statistically all of the time.

What would make you move to null sec?

Do incursions and level 3/4 missions offer too much isk with too little risk?

How do you feel about the current tax structure in EVE? - Should it be increased in high sec?

Should CCP do another Gate Redirect as they did at the end of 04/early 05? Create a more fragmented travel framework? Or leave it as is?

What would make you leave high sec in general (without feeling the urge to quit EVE)?

I have ideas but I am honestly curious to hear from the perpetual high sec player.


Eliminate bubbles or have CCP create a new line of Nully/CovOps T2 BCs and T2 BSs.
erg cz
Federal Jegerouns
#80 - 2015-11-06 08:34:17 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:
erg cz wrote:


1. Let me PvE in null without PvP, when I do not want PvP. Sort of anomalies with collapsing entrance once you passed in would do. Something with unique sights would drag in PvE oriented players even if ISK income will not be that high.
2. Let me solo PvP with at least some chance to get fair fight when I am ready and want PvP. Null arena with drifters as judge or whatever.
3. Make more high sec / null sec gates. You want ppl in null - you should give them access to it. One ever camped gate per region is simply not enough.
4. Make more NPC null regions. People do play solo for family / time / social / historical reasons. You want solo players in null - let them dock.


1) No / Very well argumented opinion
2) Use scouts (alts or friends) / Ability to play "solo" is a key note in my suggestion
3) Maybe more entrances not a bad idea - perhaps just redirect some existing entrances
4) No - syndicate, venal, great wildlands, stain all suck - too safe. ... We don't need more. / Any statistic, how many kills happens per month in "safe" and "not safe" null ?


Answers in bold.

Absolutely free head start for newcomers!. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP!