EVE General Discussion

Your points and the replies to it don't actually illustrate that putting more rewards in low sec is a bad idea. They mostly illustrate that CCP does not understand the TYPE of rewards they need to put into low sec to make it interesting.

What makes FW so successful is because 1) you can make ISK while flying a PvP ship and 2) the content is spread equally, or at least unpredictably, across the region.

The other things you mentioned that were added to low sec did not meet one or both of those criteria, which is why they led to stale content. CCP keeps trying to put null-style content in low; stuff that requires optimized PvE fits, focuses on locking down and controlling a region, and rewards running and hiding when neutrals show up. But the reality is that the random traffic and mechanics restrictions of low make this kind of content impractical.

The type of content low needs is different. It needs randomly spawning stuff that encourages roaming in proper PvP fits. It needs to reward staying in place rather than running, with payouts that are disproportionately weighted toward the final "victor" of a "king of the hill" style mechanic, rather than the consistent per-tick payouts of something like null ratting.

I'm not a content designer but, for instance, imagine a site that is a cross between an ESS and a FW plex. It requires you to bring some kind of one-time use, consumable "mobile lab" deployable. This is your buy-in. The lab has a 20 min timer. As the timer ticks down, the final value of the lab contents go up. The value would be back-weighted, so say 50% of the drop value is generated in the final 2 minutes of the timer. Timer runs down as long as any player is de-cloaked within, say, 100km. The base hull value of any player ships killed within 100km of the lab would be added to the final "pot" dropped by the lab. Rat spawns with reasonable buffer but low DPS would have their bounties added to the lab drop as well. Rats would spawn as fast as killed, and spawns would be dynamic and increase in size (and the size of their bounty added to the pot) based on the speed with which they were dispatched. Larger fleets or solo players bringing more DPS that can pop rats more quickly will get a higher final payout.

To retrieve the actual reward, the lab must be popped. This will drop the site's "pot" into a public container. The buffer HP on the lab would depend on the initial deployable used; small/solo players could bring smaller labs that are faster to pop at the end but are of course also more vulnerable to random alpha ganking. Faction variants of the lab could be used to add a multiplier to the pot values, with the risk of a much higher initial "buy in" to the site. If your site is sniped or you run early, you'll be out a lot more, but your potential pot drop at the end will be doubled or tripled, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure that thing is full of exploitable holes, but that's not the point. The implementation details can be ironed out. The basic gameplay mechanic that needs to be understood here is that low sec needs content that encourages people to roam in PvP fits and to remain in and fight over the content, rather than simply fleeing at the first sign of neutrals as happens with null content. FW was successful low-sec content because it accomplished these goals pretty well (stabbed plex farmers notwithstanding).

Why do we want more people in low sec?

easy mode lol, no i gank with impunity anyway so nothing will change the way i play, how will removing pirates hidden in medium plexes with a fleet of recons drive more people away from lowsec? how will removing pointless tankable gateguns affect players coming into lowsec? stabs in plexes are stupid and encourage botting and pirate fw should have been added years ago

so yeah your idea to get more players into lowsec is completely gutting out lowsec and adding concord. ill troll and badmouth ideas that totally fck the space i live in, sorry if that doesnt align with your viewpoint but i live here.

on another note, lowsec is hardly void of players so i dont know where you get that idea from

Removing a ton of content from the game does not fix anything, you make the situation much worse.

Simple fact here is most people in highsec have no reason to go to low sec because highsec gives them better rewards for near zero effort and risk. This is what is hurting the game as a whole. Moving highsec ice to lowsec, shaking up the mineral distribution so at least one mineral can only be found in lowsec will have a big draw. Missions do need some work, possible stopping blitzing, removing burners from highsec or just straight up moving level 4s to lowsec. PI should be shaken up so that some materials only come from low sec, LP rewards should be altered so some of the popular ones only come from low sec.

There are other things that should probably change such as probing being made harder so that its both more difficult to pinpoint people but also means good probers stand out a lot more than bad ones. It could even be argued to ban the use of cynos in low but allow caps to still use gate but that would be a bitter pill to swallow for null JF pilots.

Lowsec is the best place in Eve for a lot of pvp players and casual, we don't want bubbles or CONCORD..

I understand that lot of people want to stay in high sec, most won't go to low sec or null anyway, you can nerf high sec and increase reward in low as you want, at best they will unsub, that's dumb and CCP know it.

And if you like the boring 0.0, i don't know why but that's fine for you, stay here and let's other enjoy the game they love in low sec.

Indeed. The imbalance of risk vs. rewards is the source of many of the problem of the game, including a underpopulated lowsec.

Players whine and complain how highsec isn't safe enough, but given how much reward there is, it is still far, far too safe. Something like 80%+ of industrial activity, and 95%+ of the trade, still goes on there, not to mention the significant amount of mining, and ISK generation via Incursions and Level 4 missions that rival the ISK/h of the other spaces. CCP's failure to address this problem is the largest problem preventing the realization of the player-run empire game they set out to build. Why build an empire when you can just hide beneath the skirts of the NPC empires and let them protect you while you make about the same reward?

I would have no problem making highsec even safer if risk vs. reward was properly balanced. Unfortunately, as it is highsec is the go-to place for the majority of veterans to make their ISK or do their industry and these economy-altering activities need to be at risk. CCP really needs to address this identity crisis of what highsec is suppose to be: either it should be a much safer, but much poorer zone for new, solo and casual players to mess around and have fun in safety (and also poverty), or it is the heart of the competitive aspect of the game and thus players need more tools to interfere with each other, especially those gathering large amounts of resources or doing significant amounts of industry. The current situation we have ended up with of a highsec that is both safe and lucrative is acting as an anchor on the other spaces, draining much of the reason to go out there and collect resources, or take space and build an empire, leaving the primary attraction of non-highsec as just a space with less PvP restrictions for meaningless and consensual PvP roams or fleet fights. That's fine if you are a building a consensual fleet flight simulator where players mostly fight for honour. That is not-so-fine if you are trying to build a competitive virtual universe where players fight for space and resources.

I really hope this new space CCP Seagull says is coming forces CCP to address this imbalance and redo the risk vs. reward across the spaces. This new space is going to have to have some attraction over highsec to get players to want to move there and not just become another underutilized section of sov nullsec.

Not true.

Anything in low-sec pays more than in high-sec. The only reason high-sec has "better rewards" is CONCORD.

Moving anything from high-sec to low-sec you just basically remove it from the game. For example look at lvl5 missions. Comparing to any other levels they are almost ignored. Move lvl4 to low-sec -> the same will happen to it.
Other example: incursions.

In general anything which needs you to sit there in PVE fitted ship for prolonged periods of time dies if you move it to low-sec.

I would say that only Burners have any chance to not be forgotten if moved. And it's only because they are run in frigate-sized ships and take small time to complete.


Here are ideas i can support.

That's why I gave mine, and am asking for yours.

I feel like you're both overestimating the draw these sorts of changes would have and targeting the wrong groups of players.

Ice is already pretty limited in High Sec, and tends to get mined out pretty quickly in most space. It also already exists in Low, and that's not enough to draw generally risk-averse high sec miners into Low.

There's already the potential for good rewards from Low Sec site running, many Low Sec Deadspace modules are worth far more than their Null or High Sec counterparts (looking at you A-type tank mods).

You're never going to force people into Low who don't want to be there, and you're never going to coerce people out into Low just to get blown up unless you make it so that the actual risk of dying is low enough that they can make money there reliably, something the existing Low Sec crowd will never accept.

As for stuff like removing L4 missions, LP rewards, and a ton of other established High Sec content and moving it to Low, I think you're assuming that people will chase that stuff out to Low when most of them will either just do other things in High Sec or leave the game if they can't afford their accounts anymore on High Sec income. You might be fine with those players leaving, but I don't think CCP will ever do it, they'd lose way too many players and the game as a whole would suffer for it.

Shifting rewards from High Sec to Low just isn't a good approach. The rewards in Low could just be straight up increased, but they're already pretty high if you know what to look for. That means the actual changes need to come in the form of either an increase in *perceived* risk, or rewards. Perception can do a lot for an area of the game and often trumps reality.

I agree with your analysis.
Increasing LS rewards will not bring more HS players in.
It hasnt.

This raises the question of whom it might.
To which the answer is, NS neighbors.

Which goes right to the core of why whom is arguing for what.

NS wants supers, cynos, JFs and better rewards in LS.

Why? Consider the assets of NS entities entering and exiting LS, compared to HS entities on the other side of the LS "blood barrier" (to those unfamiliar with the term, its the tissue qualities which prevent pathogens from passing from the blood stream into the brain)

LS is sandwiched between HS and NS, and geographically narrow.
Furthermore, LS is sandwiched between too entirely different safety systems.
HS as the extreme of safety, and NS as the lowest.

If any NS agent passing through LS is engaged, NS can drop right ontop of them.
If LS responds, NS can keep funneling its far larger player/resource base ontop of it.
This cannot happen from the HS direotion, either in support, retaliation, or otherwise.

And that in and of itself, is not yet considering the safety of JFs jumping past gates on entry, nor warping to citadels.
LS, due to lack of bubbles, cannot prevent them exiting the final gate to HS.

TLDR: Current mechanics, make LS, NS's little b***h.
The transit barriers between NS, LS, and HS, in that sequence and back, must be reinforced.