These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Increase lowsec rewards.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hedoran Jaynara
Cromwell Holdings
#1 - 2012-02-06 12:06:57 UTC
Everything from mining rewards to plex, exploration and mission rewards. I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-02-06 12:08:17 UTC
Why ?
Hedoran Jaynara
Cromwell Holdings
#3 - 2012-02-06 12:15:46 UTC
wrote:
Hedoran Jaynara I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-02-06 12:17:54 UTC
Yes and i asked "Why?"
What you think is not the reason to why you think it is.

So, maybe it helps if i rephrase my question to:

Why do you think the rewards aren't comparable to the risks at the moment ?

I mean ... you have a reason to think that, do you ?
Hedoran Jaynara
Cromwell Holdings
#5 - 2012-02-06 12:29:23 UTC
Because not many people in lowsec . They don't think its worth it, and the biggest reason is iskwise. They get better rewards doing hisec stuff. Is that how its meant to be?
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-02-06 12:32:57 UTC
So you either are able to read other peoples minds,
or are projecting your own thoughts onto others.

I can think of a few more reasons why people don't go to lowsec.
For example, because they don't want to get blown up.

This does not necessarily relate to the profit that can be had in lowsec,
because people could be too afraid to lose stuff.

Highsec is "safer", so why should people go somewhere it's less "safe" ?

Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#7 - 2012-02-06 12:37:29 UTC
The rewards are fine, there is less competition and the risk itself is a reward.

Lowsec is fine <3

.
Hedoran Jaynara
Cromwell Holdings
#8 - 2012-02-06 12:45:34 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
So you either are able to read other peoples minds,
or are projecting your own thoughts onto others.


Has it occured to you that despite you were not there, I might talk to other people? Every one of them said they would gladly go to lowsec for the thrill and if the rewards were greater.


Quote:
Highsec is "safer", so why should people go somewhere it's less "safe" ?


And that my friend is the problem. Do you not agree that if the rewards slightly outweighed the risks more people would go to low sec?

Quote:
Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?


Have you?
Hedoran Jaynara
Cromwell Holdings
#9 - 2012-02-06 12:47:59 UTC
Roime wrote:
The rewards are fine, there is less competition and the risk itself is a reward.

Lowsec is fine <3



I beg to differ. I think that if one decides to live in lowsec you would have other benefits than the risk, wich is nice, but greater rewards would also be a way to get more people there.

You can not mean lowsec is feeling well. I go there occasionally and often find myself alone in local, while the high sec system nearby has over 200 in local.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-02-06 12:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Hedoran Jaynara wrote:
Has it occured to you that despite you were not there, I might talk to other people? Every one of them said they would gladly go to lowsec for the thrill and if the rewards were greater.
Well, yes ... that may be the case, but have they also told you how much of an increase would make them go there ?
That could be a ridiculous amount ... and they'd probably still wouldn't do it, because ...

Quote:
And that my friend is the problem. Do you not agree that if the rewards slightly outweighed the risks more people would go to low sec?
No, because the same applies to nullsec. There are plenty of people who simply do not want to fight,
no matter how high the rewards are. Else we'd already have much more people in lowsec,
because of lvl5 missions, for example.

Quote:

Have you?
I never stated i know the "be all end all" reason to why people don't move to lowsec,
nor did i say that i know what other people think, unlike you did.


(edit: *lol* the quoting confuses me)
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-02-06 12:57:00 UTC
Hedoran Jaynara wrote:
I beg to differ. I think that if one decides to live in lowsec you would have other benefits than the risk, wich is nice, but greater rewards would also be a way to get more people there.

You can not mean lowsec is feeling well. I go there occasionally and often find myself alone in local, while the high sec system nearby has over 200 in local.



You may differ all you want and you can have your oppinion, but it's still not a fact, just your oppinion.

You really believe that nobody else came up with that idea before
and it that nobody would even take it into consideration,
if it had any chance of being the actual problem ?
Kestrix
The Whispering
#12 - 2012-02-06 12:58:59 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:

I can think of a few more reasons why people don't go to lowsec.
For example, because they don't want to get blown up.

This does not necessarily relate to the profit that can be had in lowsec,
because people could be too afraid to lose stuff.



No, this relates directly to the profit that can be had in lowsec. wether you are mining or ratting or doing missions your ship setups are differnt to that of pvp setups and industrial ships are sitting ducks. As against our ships being 'relativley' safe in high sec.

Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?
mogwai
Gremlin Mining and Exploration
#13 - 2012-02-06 13:09:56 UTC
Hedoran Jaynara wrote:
Everything from mining rewards to plex, exploration and mission rewards. I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.


Example :
0.7 sec - solitude region versus 0.3 sec - solitude region

exploration sites - apart from the odd battleship spawn, same in 0.7 as 0.3
missions - 0.7 has lvl4, possible lvl5 in 0.3, but camped
mining - same in 0.3 as 0.7 but you can score..... jaspet /rubs hands together in glee [/exit sarcasm]

now, apart from being sat, watching local with a D-scan running all the time, i sure know which of the two i would rather be doing to earn isk at the moment. (no, i'm not being hypocritical... i'm in 0.3 at the moment)
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-02-06 13:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Kestrix wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:

I can think of a few more reasons why people don't go to lowsec.
For example, because they don't want to get blown up.

This does not necessarily relate to the profit that can be had in lowsec,
because people could be too afraid to lose stuff.



No, this relates directly to the profit that can be had in lowsec. wether you are mining or ratting or doing missions your ship setups are differnt to that of pvp setups and industrial ships are sitting ducks. As against our ships being 'relativley' safe in high sec.

Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?


So, people don't go to nullsec, because the reward isn't high enough ... right ?

There are empty lowsecs i know, depending on the time of the day.
There are lowsecs i know, where carebears are around and there's no actual danger,
because those people simply don't shoot at you.

Then there are systems like the one i am in, where nobody shows up half of the day.
So why do you believe throwing more money at people would help them realizing that
empty systems don't pose a threat ?

Do you believe that rewards need to be high enough so that people can cover their losses ?
If so, how would that make actual sense ?

Have you considered that lowsec isn't actually dangerous at all, if one is able to watch out for himself ?

Throwing more money into it wouldn't change the fact that those who are unable to take care of themselves ...
... simply will get killed ... and as that is :effort: ... people don't go to lowsec.

This POV, at least, has some logic behind it ... unlike "rewards are too low", which simply takes the player out
of the equation and puts all the blame onto the game ... which is quite typical nowadays.
Honnete Du Decimer
#15 - 2012-02-06 13:12:42 UTC
Low sec is mutant child of the high sec and of the null sec. When null sec can jump on party all time no person want. High sec and wormholes control to help block the groups of the (hooligans ?).

PMS [:p]
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#16 - 2012-02-06 13:13:55 UTC
Hedoran Jaynara wrote:
I beg to differ. I think that if one decides to live in lowsec you would have other benefits than the risk, wich is nice, but greater rewards would also be a way to get more people there.

You can not mean lowsec is feeling well. I go there occasionally and often find myself alone in local, while the high sec system nearby has over 200 in local.


I've lived in lowsec and the rewards are greater than in hisec. PI is more profitable, exploration sites have better drops and there are more and better sigs.

Low population is good for solo & small gang combat, so no complaints there either. I find there is a nice balance of peace and action, you have quiet areas good for some wallet-padding, and there are numerous well-known areas with lots of others looking for the good fight.

I don't see any benefits to having 200 in local.

.
Lexmana
#17 - 2012-02-06 13:19:19 UTC
Roime wrote:
the risk itself is a reward

QFT!
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#18 - 2012-02-06 13:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: MadMuppet
In Low-sec:
The belt rats are worth more.
The mission agents pay more (isk and LP)
The exploration sites are bigger and better.
The belts are bigger (because they are not mined out daily)
You don't need to pay charters or have standing to put up a POS.
You still get some level of protection from the gates.
Bubbles are not allowed.
Better PI output.
There are level 5 agents.

It would seem that the rewards are there. However the risk involved is higher:
CONCORD will not come to your rescue.
The market prices are higher because there is less competition.
There are fewer stations and services.
Getting to and from high-sec is more dangerous.

I just made an alt toon to tinker with game mechanics and returned from a trip in low and null, the rewards for even a level 1 agent are far better to the point that the risk of getting there in a cheap ship is worth the extra travel time and caution to get there.

Even on this toon I have a couple small fleets of ships parked in low-sec in case I feel like wandering. They are not as fancy as what I have in high-sec, but that is because I know what I can afford to lose.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-02-06 13:47:18 UTC
MadMuppet wrote:
However the risk involved is higher:


Not wanting to argue with what you said,
just want to point out the fact that there really only is a small risk
if one is able to actually watch out for himself.

As people get ganked in highsec mostly because they don't do that,
it's no wonder that there aren't more people in lowsec.
Citizen Smif
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2012-02-06 14:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Citizen Smif
I would definitely like some more income, hopefully enough of it so I can afford a shiny monocle and field jacket. +1
123Next page