These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
#161 - 2016-11-02 18:03:04 UTC
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:


You seemed to have completely missed my point.

PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.


No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell.

The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day.

About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I can’t think of any.


You miss my point again. PVE is the only way in the game to generate isk. Note that I said generate and not make, earn, trade, or any other word. This is because you can make isk a lot of different ways in EVE but it will come from another player. only in PVE is isk literally made out of thin air and added to the economy. Thus PVE is the foundation of the economy.


This argument is a little weak. For one there is floating currency in the game, I think the only time money is removed from the market is the purchase of CCP seeded items. It is why price inflation is such a thing in EVE. Mission runners infuse ISK and Materials into the game, but so does PVP. LP stores and salvage bring both not in as large numbers but the mechanics are there. Asteroids are mined, Ships are made and they are bought by a steadily rising amount of ISK. PVE is what causes depreciation of prices in EVE, PvP causes them to rise. It is much more complex then just more ISK more stuff.

I think we would both need to be economists for any of this to really be discussed.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#162 - 2016-11-02 18:03:57 UTC
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:


You seemed to have completely missed my point.

PVE is the foundation of the EVE economy and without it the PVP aspect of the game could not exist. EVE requires a balance between PVE and PVP game play for the economy to work.


No, I at least got your point, but reject it since it is invalid. When I do invention I am engaging in competition with other players. The fact that it is largely anonymous does not change the nature of this. The EVE markets are competitive markets by and large. As a buyer for minerals I am competing with other buyers and we drive up the price. The suppliers are competing with other suppliers, and drive the price down. Somewhere in that mix a price emerges and people buy and sell.

The fact that in such competition we are not shooting each other in the face does not mean it is not players competing with each other. Even two miners working the same belt may very well be in competition (assuming they are not in some sort of partnership). The more one pilot gets the less another can obtain. Mining asteroid belts is a zero sum game each day.

About the only thing where players are not in competition is mission running. A mission agent can satisfy the demand for 1 to any number of mission runners. There could be some other parts of the game that are not competitive, but I can’t think of any.


You miss my point again. PVE is the only way in the game to generate isk. Note that I said generate and not make, earn, trade, or any other word. This is because you can make isk a lot of different ways in EVE but it will come from another player. only in PVE is isk literally made out of thin air and added to the economy. Thus PVE is the foundation of the economy.


No, even ratting in NS, which is where the bulk of the ISK comes from, is competitive. This is how it works in alliances in NS. If you get into a sanctum or haven, it is "yours" to rat in. That is, I cannot come in and start shooting stuff. If I do, I'll be asked to get on comms, if I am not already, and get a stern talking too from someone in the leadership. I'll have the rules explained to me, and told not to violate them and if I do what sort of sanctions will be applied. Thus, anomalies are typically "first come, first serve". So that too is competition. Further, holding that space so that you can rat in it and that ISK can enter the game is a direct result of PvP.

The distinction between PvE and PvP is really more of a distinction between direct "shoot them in the face" PvP and other forms of PvP, IMO. About the only pure PvE is running missions.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
#163 - 2016-11-02 18:05:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:

This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.


Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.

If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space.


This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.

When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen.

You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea.


Quote:

I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.


if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace.

The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough*Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal.[/quote]


I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please!
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#164 - 2016-11-02 18:07:10 UTC
Nerfing PVP at this point is pointless because the only ones left playing are bitter vets.

But it wouldn't hurt to add ships with more tank for high sec activities.

But to me that is pointless because I will be playing F2P and won't be able to
Mine or haul anything worth of note.

And I already have several billion in isk and assets so losing a bunch of cruisers won't be a big deal.

I'm trying to think of what this game needs to improve beyond better financial instruments, but I'm at a loss as nothing I can think of will make a difference at this point.

If we have to rely on the forums to save EVE, the game is doomed.

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
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
#165 - 2016-11-02 18:09:13 UTC
EVE 2.0 - Strat Sim
Keno Skir
#166 - 2016-11-02 18:10:21 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
Steffles wrote:
*giving a stern look*


well, that's just d*mb people like you like to think. i thought you quit already? lol


You shouldn't call someone "Dumb" when you have no idea what it means, it makes you sound uneducated.

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#167 - 2016-11-02 18:20:01 UTC
Tristan Valentina wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:

This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.


Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.

If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space.


This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.

When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen.

You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea.


Quote:

I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.


if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace.

The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough*Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal.



I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please![/quote]

You know I don't think people stay in high sec because of skewed risk/reward ratio, but rather a aversion to getting involved with people and politics.

To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.

I usually like to make lose alliances with people rather than join their own corporation, because when I do the CEO invariably does something stupid and gets us all killed. I suppose there are larger alliances but those have too much politics for my liking.

And it's hard to be a neutral in null.

So my gut feeling tells me that most people don't like interpersonal BS, so they stick to high sec and just solo or keep their Corp small.

Even if you made high sec less profitable, it still would not encourage players to move out of high sec.

They would rather quit, but at this point you can't really quit after the 15th so I don't know if that is valid anymore.

You can just say they will stop paying subs since no point in mining in a exhumed if it's no longer profitable.

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
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2016-11-02 18:22:22 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Old IT Guy wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.



You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge.

EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave.


I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play.


I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't.

EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.


The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game.




from the official site


what is eve online

Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
Lasisha Mishi
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#169 - 2016-11-02 18:25:55 UTC
highsec is fine as it is now =/

if you want pvp. go low sec or null sec

if you want to relax(a little), high sec.


please don't try to force pvp onto high sec.....you have low sec, wormholes, and null sec for that purpose..and war decs


i'm ok pvp (just went on first pvp with bombersbar yesterday), but if i have to deal with it constantly, i'd quit.


highsec profit margins are fine right now. nullsec you can get rich fast. while high sec takes a while. so risk reward is fine.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#170 - 2016-11-02 18:31:44 UTC
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
Old IT Guy wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
Nice attitude Jagd. This is why this game's community has such a horrible(and deserved) reputation.



You don't go to a poker tournament and demand the rules be changed to let people play Bridge.

EveO is MASSIVELY PVP. If someone doesn't like it they *DO* need to leave.


I find this a rather annoying notion that people try to imply EVE is strictly a PVP game. Yes PVP is a huge part of it but its entire economy is rooted in PVE game play.


I tried to link a facepalm gif, but the Internets was so tired of this topic it deleted them all so I couldn't.

EVE is a pvp game, it's very nature pits players (P!) against (VERSES) other players (another P!). Non-consensual pvp is present everywhere (and not just combat in space, but in industry, in markets, for resources, etc). PVP is so central to the game people can be engaged in it and not even know it.


The only folks who don't understand what "EVE is a pvp game" means are the folks who have such a narrow idea of what pvp is that they think it involves shooting. Most of my activity involves shooting rats rather than real people (real people have crappy loot and bounties, screw em) and even I know that EVE is a pvp-centric game.




from the official site


what is eve online

Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.


I underlined the parts that include pvp.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#171 - 2016-11-02 18:33:54 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:


To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.


Thisi is untrue,so untrue I'll link someone I actually cannot stand.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2016-11-02 18:41:24 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:



If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.



Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK

I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems.
in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again).
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#173 - 2016-11-02 18:44:52 UTC
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:



If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.



Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK

I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems.
in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again).


I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong.

When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Raca Pyrrea
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2016-11-02 18:46:43 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Raca Pyrrea wrote:




from the official site


what is eve online

Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.


I underlined the parts that include pvp.



you also underlined the parts that are not pvp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2016-11-02 18:49:59 UTC
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Raca Pyrrea wrote:




from the official site


what is eve online

Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.


I underlined the parts that include pvp.



you also underlined the parts that are not pvp


Yes, it does make things easier if you hold a nihilistic view. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#176 - 2016-11-02 18:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Jenn aSide wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:


To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.


Thisi is untrue,so untrue I'll link someone I actually cannot stand.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467


Hell, I even ninja'd null rats when I was bored with FW in 2013.

But that's technically not living but rather working in null sec. Sure there are stations that tolerate neutrals but it still requires some politicking for the neutral. And I specifically said live.

If you have to fly back and forth between high sec and null.... Well...

You only visit there.

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
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#177 - 2016-11-02 18:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:



If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.



Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK

I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems.
in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again).


I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong.

When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be.


To be fair, gankers are also risk adverse. They mostly ignore bot fleets with nothing but 20 skiffs and kill the one poor bastard in a hulk.

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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#178 - 2016-11-02 19:07:09 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Raca Pyrrea wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:



If anything, the game needs more easy ways for players to see how much cargo a particular ship is carrying, both for haulers so they can appreciate the risks they face, and for pirates to select targets.



Basically its not about pvp, gameplay, sandbox, but effectively you want risk free ISK

I believe that the protective mechanics for the hisecers are enough as they are but what needs to change is the risk for the suicide ganker. Add a mechanism for an increased loss of lootdrop, say a 70-100% chance for loot destruction(/CONCORD confiscation) in 0.8-1 systems, 50-80% for 0.5-0.7 systems.
in addition make cargoscan accuracy skill based, but give to the visctim the chance to counter that (skill based again).


I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong.

When a group ganks a freighter they are imposing risk on those seeking risk. That is as it should be.


To be fair, gankers are also risk adverse. They mostly ignore bot fleets with nothing but 20 skiffs and kill the one poor bastard in a hulk.


So what? There is nothing wrong with being risk averse. In fact, most of us are.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#179 - 2016-11-02 19:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Merovee
People are lazy, I've have been ganked 5 times since '03, because I was lazy. Gankers are lazier than I am, always ask "What did I do wrong" after an gank. Learn from it and move on. I lived in low sec from '03 to '11 with stints in null sec and only lived in high sec last few years because of RL politics when my time was limited to doing a once a month lvl 4 missions with my son.

I've been playing Civ5 for a year, trying to get my first King win and thanks to Filthy I'm getting really close. This winter I have no more ties so maybe I'll get to relearn this game again and start playing regular. Blink

To: CCP
Good job on the game Cool, after playing Civ I was wondering when you will be planning a ground game for eve on the planets?

Merovee

Empire, the next new world order.
Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#180 - 2016-11-02 19:21:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius NoVegas
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Tristan Valentina wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:

This is why the OP's suggestion is self serving crap.


Your points are all well made but I believe the real issue with isn't with high/low sec and much as its with null/W-space.

If you look at the numbers for production in EVE vs destruction, youll find that production is overwhelmingly taking place in high/low sec. Destruction on the other hand is more even with slightly more destruction happening in high/low then null/w-space. So the OP is not wrong in that high/low is more dangerous then compared to null/w-space.


This is wrong. Even if destruction is even, WAY fewer people live in null/WH space compared to Empire. Something around 80% of toons are in empire space.

When you have 80% of the population and less than 50% of the destruction, it means you are safer than the other place. It means empire is too safe for the rewards offered there. The OP wants to increase that safety, which is the opposite of what should happen.

You can'r lower rewards , so the real thing to do is lower safety. That won't happen either, but the LAST thing that should happen is increased safety. OP's idea increase safety, and is thus a bad idea.


Quote:

I believe this is an incentive issue more then a security issue. However you look at it, its not how the game was intended to be and more destruction needs to be incentive to null/w-space. this is why I think the risk vs reward aspect of eve is too in favor of high/low sec and needs to be readdressed. PVE carebears are not the problem, the disproportion of reward and preceived aspect of risk is the real issue.


if anything it is now too easy to make money in null and WHspace.

The problem isn't null/WH , it's that high sec is too safe and the OP wants more safety. I've learned to live with the current imbalances (cough*Incursions*cough), but making it worse with more safety isn't just bad, it's damn near criminal.



I really like these arguments, MAKE HIGHSEC UNPROFITABLE!!! Please!

You know I don't think people stay in high sec because of skewed risk/reward ratio, but rather a aversion to getting involved with people and politics.

To live in null or WH requires other people and trust in those people not to screw you over with malice or sheer stupidity.

I usually like to make lose alliances with people rather than join their own corporation, because when I do the CEO invariably does something stupid and gets us all killed. I suppose there are larger alliances but those have too much politics for my liking.

And it's hard to be a neutral in null.

So my gut feeling tells me that most people don't like interpersonal BS, so they stick to high sec and just solo or keep their Corp small.

Even if you made high sec less profitable, it still would not encourage players to move out of high sec.

They would rather quit, but at this point you can't really quit after the 15th so I don't know if that is valid anymore.

You can just say they will stop paying subs since no point in mining in a exhumed if it's no longer profitable.


The risk vs reward aspect is the real issue. High sec is suppose to be secure for new players just learning the game and is designed not to over whelm them in the begining. Low sec is to help introduce them to PVP and the ultimate goal of pushing players into NULL/W-space. High sec does need to be safer for new players but with that we also need to push any experianced players out of high and into low. The issue arises from perspective and reality. the perspective that high sec is low risk with moderate reward is why so many players cling to it. the risk/reward need to reflect low risk and low reward for high sec. While low sec transisions to favor pvp in an aspect that appears to be high risk with moderate reward and this only occured because the only real protection in low sec is sentry guns that are about as useful as a chihuahua stoping an intruder.