Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So first off I'll just come out and say this is an idea that has just come to me and there may be something glaringly wrong with it that I've not seen.

My idea is that highsec missions should be more heavily against other empire factions; the idea being that if you want to run missions in highsec then you will suffer from not being able to freely travel all empires (unless you manage your standings well). Near lowsec systems and lowsec systems could have a larger amount of missions versus pirate factions saving your standings and paying better but putting yourself at risk.

I would see the effect of this being to break up the solidarity of Jita as the one true trade hub of new Eden with more people unable to travel across the whole of highsec. This would in turn boost profits for traders moving items between hubs and increase camping opportunities for gankers. For missioners they would have to dip their toes into lowsec if they want to keep standings high all around and if they do they will be rewarded with the higher payouts lowsec already has. If they want to stay risk free they will have to sacrifice faction standings to do so. For PvPers they will see more targets in space in lowsec and this could then lead to corps moving into lowsec systems to defend their mission runners.

No thanks.

Id rather you just flat out nerf level 4 rewards and buff low sec than add more npc standing mechanics to missions. With this idea id just move to caldari space. Not decentralising the market, but instead centralising the population.

Throwing more money at lowsec does not make risk averse people go there ...
... because for too many it's not about the income, but about the possible outcome.

Losing a ship.

First you need to better understand basic human nature, there are some(many) that will not go into low sec on a routine basis if at all and there is nothing you or CCP can do to change that. Significantly change what they like to do, or eliminate it and all you do is drive them out of the game.

I noticed that you targeted those who do not PvP(shoot other players) for your high sec nerfs why?
If you want more PvP(shoot other players) in low sec then you need to drive the PvP(shoot other players) crowd out of high sec, forcing them to go to low to be able to kill something other than red crosses. To be blunt and honest as long as there are easy kills in high sec to pad kill board statistics with and very few consequences for doing so why should they leave high sec. And yet the same thing applies to this group of players as the section above. If you significantly change or eliminate what they like to do in the game then you would likely just drive them out of the game and that would not be good either.

Interesting, so how exactly does trashing my home and destroying the play style of a significant number of players actually accomplish anything?

Random chance is in almost all game circumstances a bad thing, gameplay is based on people's expectations of what can be done and what will happen, and their attempts to stack the odds their way. Random chance means you just end up dying sometimes and not other times despite no difference in what you actually do.

Many have posted saying that I shouldn't to try to nerf highsec or that lowsec doesn't need anything done to help it but I disagree. Risk averse players will remain risk averse no matter what isk/hr you give them in low it will still not be enough compensation for most. My suggestion allows risk averse players to remain in highsec if they want but it will cost them faction standing with their enemy factions, providing a non-financial incentive to go into dangerous space. I believe the inconvenience of losing faction standings would be enough to push some players out of highsec while not forcing them anywhere or nerfing their income in any way. Someone pointed out that alts would ruin the idea somewhat and that's true, but what ideas do alts not ruin? At least alts could not exploit my idea for a profit like some ideas posted here.

How about you just answer his question?

These people are not best characterized as risk averse, but probably more accurately described as loss averse. You are correct that they unlikely to go to LS for many levels of reward, if they are indeed loss averse.

There is some merit to the thinking. The standing changes in low sec should only be positive, no drawback towards opposing factions. I do however think the LP should be higher, but the standing gains lower, to balance the potential increased risk of losses in low sec..


Short version half the standing gains, remove standing loss, and double the LP rewards..


It might get some to go there to fix the see-saw problem, but as many mentioned it would not be a lot, since the other reasons to stay out will and should not change..


Maybe if they set the industry and research indexes totally free and let it run on moving average instead of base values, there would be a rather considerable motivation to go to low sec.. Even with the risks..

If the industry index was let loose and followed 90d avg the cost to produce would be so remarkably lower in unpopulated and especially low sec, that people would spread the risk to service low sec better and use it for exports more..

If the research cost was 1/10 it would be worth the risk to export almost all blue print copies from low sec, the competition would go to those taking these risks, and scaling up would mean bigger value in potential targets. Same with bulk ship and item production. Just like with office rental and facility problems back in the day, the solution is to allow supply and demand to keep running price up including on npc costs. Soon(tm) there will hopefully hardly be any npc services and seeds left. In any case players Citadels would be more interesting if the incentive was on competing with npc, at least until HUBs are in player hands..