Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think that is precisely what some of have been saying.

Seems legit, i can´t understand where those pirats come from and why concord doesn´t see them when they see me ganking a barge -.-.

+1

The nail that stands up gets pounded down.

It is easier to adjust highsec, which is the outlier, than it is to adjust every single other area of space.

I'm sure I've seen it here before but frankly the biggest problem lowsec has is its reputation.

If you want to nerf highsec, remove burners from there and drop LP/mission payouts a little but honestly the biggest highsec bugbear is lolcursions.

I wouldn't be very sad if our chief Sansha would retire his effords to "recruit" people to his cause and hence end the incursions alltogether.
But if someone gets more not funny ideas to reduce my main income - which is low enough now - I get mad really quick.

Maybe I am a rarity item but I fly one ship at a time so my options in making isk is limited. Maybe you cannot read, which isn't so bad these days, but I can and when I need about a week to come close to 300m isk because I do other things than running missions all day long and I read the pricetags of things on my shopping list it is more than upsetting.

I don't mind the work but getting paid less for more than twice the price they used to have, getting gear is a long process. My isk doesn't come by magic or software programs that run in the backgroud it comes from shooting red thingies with a bounty tag on or red thingies that drop something blue.

I also get upset when some dude in local tells me that his vanguard buddies are making 11 billion a day - what??

This last thing is supposed to sound a much condecending as possible when I say I do not under any circumstance even think about putting one of my ships into the hands of total incompetent logistic pilots, so incursions for me.

Now explain why my income should be decreased again? How about increasing payouts in high-risk places to an appropiate level like unknown space instead?

Making lowsec safer will encourage people to come in from highsec.

Everyone, to some degree is both loss-averse and risk-averse. Increasing the reward doesn't overcome loss-aversion. Increasing safety does. People with low loss-aversion already come to lowsec (or null, or w-space) chasing the ISK which is there for the taking, increasing the loot and ISK will only make those existing people richer.

Or they need to be able to put less at risk to be able to make their money in lowsec. You should be able to make decent money in assault frigates or similar sized ships. Battleships in lowsec are huge slow targets and people are understandably afraid to use them much. Perhaps level 4 lowsec missions could be group based instead of requiring battleships to make them more difficult but not suicidal to run.

I should make clear that when I say risk averse in my posts I do not attach anything negative to it, I am just as risk averse as most people.

Perhaps the answer lies in the rigid and unchanging nature of the universe

I was looking at dotlan today, and there's stats rather curious stats....

The most ship kills is in Jita - high sec - 14734
then comes Tama - low sec - 10005
then Amarr and Udemma - both high sec - 8845 and 8556
and then comes the a null sec region - W-4NUU - 8333

After that the top ten of both High sec and Low sec are both far more violent than null sec - with Ultra - the state war academy (where supposedly CCP supposedly frowns on PvP) being the fifth highest in lhigh sec - with almost twice as many ship kills as the second most violent in null-sec - 7066 vs 4392

When you then look at the NPC kills - and the carebear statistics - it becomes apparent that null-sec is on a par with high-sec for mission running

So here is my suggestion...

A fluid universe...

Set a cap on the rewards offered by mission agents per station, based on the number of NPC kills the previous day - or some other relevant metric - (it can be staggered to take account of time zones) - after all there can only be so many pirate invasions in a day that need taking care of - when the quota is reached, the rewards and the loot goes down.

Make the security status reflect the number of ship kills. The more ship kills the lower the security status. This could also be tied into an attriional factor that affects the regeneration of astroids, PI, moon-goo etc - the more fighting the less yield - and conversely if you drive down the security status of a high sec system, suddenly the null-sec minerals start spawning.

You could also drag in the factions and NPCs, who faced with prospect of losing territory declare war on the pirates in Udemma (who are busily playing the fozziesov game on the system - having dragged it's sec status lower that the carebears in null-sec could ever dream of) - which then drags in all those 'carebears' hiding in NPC corps that the bored and bloodthirsty have been dying to get their hands on for years.

Meanwhile those who want to just be left alone and do their high-sec thing will move to the areas of low-sec and null-sec that have now become high-sec on account of nothing happening there for years, and the mega payments available from mission agents who have been waiting months to get the DNA in level 1 mission analysed

Oh and of course new markets and trade routes would open - after-all why would you go to Jita when it has 0.0 security rating and the dock-campers don't even need to bother about a dual, as they smart bomb the marginal traders scrambling to get their stuff out ( cursing their API linked phone Apps for not predicting this swing in the market)

.....

But of course the answer is no....

Hence the warning sign that you are entering low-sec....

And the endless whining by the 'big name null sec carebears' that if they only nerf high sec some more, then they will have more people to kill, to supplement their mission running habit (they have to fight battleships you know)(yeah we know)(hence why high-sec types in cruisers and T1 weapons don't go out there)

It is not risk. It is the notion of a loss. Loss averse people strongly avoid losses even at the expense of gains. Reducing the risk a little bit will have little to no effect, just as boosting the rewards a little bit would have no effect.

1. Wait, you think the trabe hubs are in highsec to increase the population density of highsec...................LOL !

OMG, you dont need to say anything more to prove how utterly clueless you are about EVE.

2. There is nothing wrong with highsec or any other area of the game. Its just people hate to have their multi-billion ISK ships go BOOM so they play in highsec. Destroying highsec wont help the rest of the game, it wont populate them it will instead crush CCPs income stream and destroy EVE entirely.

3. If your mentality is as you state im happy to announce that CCP wont follow through with your request because they are smart enough not to bite off the hand that feeds them.

4. EVE was never a truly successful game because CCP is a poor steward of economics. A certain new upcoming game has already acquired one million accounts and growing and it is still in pre-alpha; that is how you win the economics game so you can support all the areas of your game both pve and pvp. If CCP had provided an environment suitable to a larger pve playerbase its finances would have allowed it to create pvp content it cannot even dare to dream with its current income stream.

CCP and many of its playerbase call EVE a niche game but that is just hollow justification for the horrible financial acumen of CCP.

5. LOL, you think the trade hubs are in highsec to increase highsec's player density !
(I had to state this one twice because im still laughing.)