EVE General Discussion

Are you drunk?

Alright, things are getting a bit wild on this thread, so let's bring it back to basics again.

What does Low-sec, in general, want? More content
What is more content? More PVP
What is required for more PVP? More People
What is required for more People? Less Risk
How do you remove risk? Make it harder to kill people

After playing this game 10+ years in High-sec, Low-sec, NPC Null, and Sov Null.. those above statements are pretty spot on. Many of you have put that if we put more rewards into low-sec, more people will go. Yeah, some will.. but certainly not in the amounts that really could make low-sec come alive.

Really, it seems to me that for many low-sec PVP'ers, a low-sec paradise looks awfully similar to NPC Null.

The problem with that is the reason NPC Null works is that it is difficult to get to because places like low-sec are in the way and both the distance and the expected hostility act as a barrier.. which adds to the protection one can get in NPC null (and in Sov Null too).

Whatever a solution is.. in order to have more content, you have to have more people, and in order to have more people, those people need to feel comfortable (i.e. relatively safe) in that space. That fact isn't going to be solved by removing the ability to cyno into and out of low-sec. That fact isn't going to be solved by moving incursions into low-sec. The more you try to force people into an area, the more likely they will either change occupations or quit the game. That has been my experience over the years.

So you are left with only one option: Make low-sec safer. Period. This can be accounted as fact because, in reality, Sov null-sec is effectively the safest space in the game if you keep your head about you. Now, what we should all be concerned about is HOW that is done without killing non-consensual PVP outright. Only after that is figured out can you really work on whether or not an isk faucet needs to be adjusted or moved, or if new ones need to be developed.

No offense but you are with darkness which is a nullsec alliance, darkness is never in lowsec, what gives you the idea that Lowsec isn't alive?

In game map or DotLan. FW space is active. Everywhere else in low sec... not really.

I would like to agree, and try myself to think outside the box as much as possible inorder that non-linear solutions dont get overlooked.

But its difficult, cos so much of the sector mechanics are essentially linear by design.
There is a cascade of security mechanics, increasing towards 1.0, and decreasing towards 0.0.
There is also a content cascade in terms of rewards/difficulty in the same linear spectrum.
(With the notable exception of HS Incursions and perhaps Ice belts, which are far too profitable)
There is also a player autonomy cascade that follows the same general linear spectrum.

Furthermore, the geographic landscape in EVE of these sectors, is linear as well. except notably for HS islands.

One of my core concerns, is material transport ease/safety between HS and NS.
I dont think LS is currently enough of an impediment/buffer zone between the two markets.
Ive tried to address this non-linearly by suggesting a delivery cargo value tax in HS, of 1% per gate.

How about keeping the HS/LS specific gate changes suggested and add a mechanic to missions only where, due to lack of maintenance, all missions are gated and the gate only works again, after the initial use, after a RGN of minutes (3-7+). This allows the mission runner a few minutes to gate into a mission and start running it. He probably won't complete it fully by the time the gate is "recharged", but the mission runner will have to keep an eye on the scanner and decide if he thinks he can complete it before the gate allows company. This head start may encourage some pilots who fear an "instant drop" during the mission. The RNG number would be shown back at the gate for any other player who has probed down the mission runner (the gate broadcasts info only so far) and allows the second player to decide rather to follow and engage, etc. The mission runner is left with knowing he has some headstart into a mission, but how much exactly is unknown. If the original player warps out , he is forced to return later or suffer the normal penalties.

As stated before, LoSec population can probably only be increased by making SOME parts more safe. THe HS/LS gate changes could work well as it encourages at least a tentative step into LoSec. Changes into LS mission mechanics or, perhaps in other ways, exploration sites, could also increase the perceived safety and, therefore, increase the population. Throw in some LS exclusive perks like Pilot Locked skins/clothing or other rewards and you might see LS become much more occupied.

lower profits from nullsec

or add delay to local in lowsec and remove local in nullsec.

most profitable systems should be the most dangerous

Ive addressed this earlier in the thread at length.
For best effect, it would be concurrent with preventing cynos from jumping into or out of LS, especially to hinder JFs.
(Which is the geographic buffer between HS and NS).
Cynos dont belong in LS. They belong in NS.

How do you propose to implement "people change"?

(Heh, you edited it out)

Mechanics changes arent made to "assist" anyone, much less on "deserving".
They are to equalize unbalanced mechanics and irrationality in the game system.

If you are judging proposed changes based on criteria of "assisting" someone, or on "deserving", you are doing it wrong.