These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

'Carrot and Stick' or 'Bait and Switch'?

Author
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-03-06 00:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Delici Feelgood
Wont matter if it is "carrot or stick" some players are so asinine about the meta win even leading them to water when they are thirsty wont do the trick.

However, failing to see that the forums are in fact an extention of the game and that people tend to have agendas does seem a bit non-sensical also.
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-03-06 01:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Azala
You shouldn't take too much notice of these debates/arguments, there will always be these debates/arguments for the simple fact we have players that play with different styles in the same game.


CCP are unlikely to make high-sec pointless to the carebears as they would lose a lot of players. So I'd be surprised if level 4s were removed from high-sec.

You can't force carebears to abandon high-sec because they just won't, force them too much and you would just force them out of the game.

It's as simple as, if people have a choice (paying customers, do have a choice) then you just can't force them to do something they don't want to do.

I'd suggest PvPers and carebears consider each group's point of view when trying to improve the game, rather than just thinking of their own interests.

EVE is a PvP game in essence but it's also a sandbox type game so there's nothing wrong with carebears being ingame, but high-sec should remain not totally safe.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#43 - 2012-03-06 01:11:19 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
If you really want to incentivize different area's of EVE...

Remove alloy drops in the drone regions.

Make certain minerals only available from high Sec.
Make certain minerals only available in Low Sec.
Make certain minerals only available in Null Sec.

Minerals fuel the entire economy, and have been devalued for far too long. As their value increases due to restricted availability the entire market is affected.

Prices will rise, and they need to.
Mining as a profession is revitalized, and it needs to be.
Low Sec interaction becomes a high value necessity, as it needs to be.
Null Sec, Low Sec and High Sec are forced to keep the flow of materials going strong in all directions, as needs to happen.

The politics and power groups in all securty levels strongly affect the markets in all area's of the game.

Then you consider restricting the availablity of the other key element to the economy, namely Ice Products.

This would have a far more sweeping positive effect on the game as a whole than moving level 4 missions ever would.


I'm inclined to agree with this.

While there is stratification in the mineral content of different security levels, there is not enough.

"Take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves." In EVE the pennies are the rocks everyone disdainfully shrugs off shooting as a profession.

Everyone seems to like niggling over the details while glossing over the big picture. Make mineral collection a viable career choice and pretty much everything else will fall into place. And until the drone regions get the makeover they so desperately need, mining will never be a worthwhile pursuit.

Mr Epeen Cool
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#44 - 2012-03-06 01:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Spenser for Hire wrote:
Let's assume that the Goons didn't have to resort to Universe-wide suicide gankin' in order to control ice. Lets assume all the ice in the game is in an area totally controlled by the Goons. And the Goons, being Goons, raise the price of ice so high you have to sell a few Plex to be able to afford it.

Most players in the game would have an interest in this, an interest in returning Ice prices to more sane levels. Such players would be willing to join a Coalition, not willing to commit to an Alliance, but willing to help some Alliance fight for and take just enough of Goon controlled space, so that they can mine Ice and return Ice prices to normal.

That would be great, the ice miners would come to US to get ganked.

That sounds like a ...
Delici Feelgood wrote:
Wont matter if it is "carrot or stick" some players are so asinine about the meta win even leading them to water when they are thirsty wont do the trick.

Like every one's dream, ice miners coming into your land, but making it sound different than forcing them into your space.

Meta win!


Better yet, if it's in someone else's space, then we can kick them out and take it. You see, we're overdue our rent and have overstayed in Dek, we were supposed to be out a week ago..


With all that money they could hire mercs .. wait a sec, people are already fighting us. Even better, you can just ask them to concentrate on some bit of ice that doesn't have tech in it

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-03-06 02:26:20 UTC
It's not anti-carebear or anti-highsec, it is pro-eve and pro-ccp.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#46 - 2012-03-06 04:32:17 UTC
What about the carrot -and- the stick?

Just wondered.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#47 - 2012-03-06 10:14:10 UTC
Wonderful thread.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#48 - 2012-03-06 10:54:44 UTC
Perhaps one day you will realize that we are actually trying to help you, not hurt you.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#49 - 2012-03-06 11:06:07 UTC
Spenser for Hire wrote:
*snip*


Amongst your wall-o-text you make some interesting points.

May I direct you towards my CEO, who is running for CSM this year and hopes to improve both the hi-sec war and sov mechanics.

Check my sig....

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com

Ira Infernus
Knights-of-Cydonia
#50 - 2012-03-06 11:18:00 UTC

Alot of the threads lately are simply propoganda in attempt at the CSM, to encourage certain people into power another free holiday.

Ultimately these "nerf L4's in highsec" threads wont work for the following reasons;

-Incursions bring in more ISK than a L4, they should be nerfed first, if at all. (I do not believe that they should be removed or "nerfed" per say, just made much harder than they currently are).

-Kill L4's and you kill the highsec corps where alot of players gain their ISK to risk elsewhere. If it wasnt for the fact that I can regularily run L4's and make good ISK (not nearly on the L4 nullseccers claim to make with their steady isk revenue btw!), I wouldnt be running pvp toons elsewhere, setting up wardecs, roams, ventures in moon mining, ninja wormhole mining, etc etc.

^For the above reason too, alot of the scientists in eve will be lost, some careers require safety or the biggest alliances will dominate, destroying eve totally.

-Remove L4's, you kill the highsec corps that have the patience and casual playstyle that appeals to alot of the newbs who eventually grow into the 0.0 pilots fighting in nullsec now.
Grikath
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-03-06 12:04:50 UTC
Ira Infernus wrote:

Alot of the threads lately are simply propoganda in attempt at the CSM, to encourage certain people into power another free holiday.

Ultimately these "nerf L4's in highsec" threads wont work for the following reasons;

-Incursions bring in more ISK than a L4, they should be nerfed first, if at all. (I do not believe that they should be removed or "nerfed" per say, just made much harder than they currently are).

-Kill L4's and you kill the highsec corps where alot of players gain their ISK to risk elsewhere. If it wasnt for the fact that I can regularily run L4's and make good ISK (not nearly on the L4 nullseccers claim to make with their steady isk revenue btw!), I wouldnt be running pvp toons elsewhere, setting up wardecs, roams, ventures in moon mining, ninja wormhole mining, etc etc.

^For the above reason too, alot of the scientists in eve will be lost, some careers require safety or the biggest alliances will dominate, destroying eve totally.

-Remove L4's, you kill the highsec corps that have the patience and casual playstyle that appeals to alot of the newbs who eventually grow into the 0.0 pilots fighting in nullsec now.


But my dear!!! You're using Logic where Politics run rampant.. *ouch* Blink

It's always fun to see the "Nerf! High! Sec!!!" idorts try to enforce their own flavour of PVP on "the Sandbox" while completely forgetting that there are many more ways to PVP in EVE than just shooting shiney shipses.
Nice to see the metagame still runs strong in some.

Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.

Bill Banner
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-03-06 13:45:11 UTC
Most folks seem to be missing the boat on the whole highsec/nullsec issue.

Let me summarize as I see it; highsec is for folks with limited playtime while nullsec is for folks with the playtime to support it.

Most folks have limited playtime, to encourage more players to migrate to nullsec is to add more content that can be accessed in bite sized chunks with limited disruption - Incursion sites were a step in the right direction. On the other hand, you have established Alliances fully content with the status quo, they just want more targets to keep their people happy - their fix is akin to sending the border collies into highsec to bring the sheep closer.

De-valuing highsec in terms of reducing the amount of bang for the buck as a time to reward ratio will not send hordes of disenfranchised 'carebears' funneling into low/null, it will send them to another game.
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#53 - 2012-03-06 15:29:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alistair Cononach
Basic Game Design, especially in a PvP Centric Social-based MMO Game, generally has a gradient of risk vs. reward, leading players from low-reward, no risk noobie zones where players can learn game mechanics and basics, through "leveling" areas where risk is low-to-moderate and reward usually low, to end-game where risk (insofar as some games have risk, when you lose nothing but time) is high and rewards very high.

In most games, to see and experience the most productive (in terms of loot) content, you have to be part of a group, and have to be playing the end-game content. If you choose not to, thats fine, but you don't get access to the best/most the game has to offer.

CCP made, IMO, a good decision flattening this curve some, as it's one of the most hated aspects by casual and low-skill or anti-social/minimally-social/solo players. The trouble is, they went too far.

The amount of isk/reward one can generate in high-sec in an NPC Corp, where risk is exceptionally limited, rivals that of any other form of PvE-based isk-generation in EVE. The drive for players to want/need to put themselves at risk, or better yet to organize, socialize, and group up, simply does not exist. One could make trillions simply PvE'ing Level 4's in a nice, risk-free Sec. 0.5 system, and as long as they don't call attention to themselves via smacktalk, and don;t overly bling their PvE Ship, they ahve almost 100% safety doing so.

This is a flaw in game design. The abillity to make isk in High-Sec should be limited, it should be a sacrifice to choose to play only in High-sec, only PvE, in a PvP-centric game like EVE. You should not have access to one fo the ebst and safest sources of isk in the game playing solo, in a risk-free environemnt. It defeats the entire purpose of risk vs. reward.

I would support the removal of Level 4's from High-Sec. Max Level 3's would still be grinded by dedicated anti-social anti-risk players, but the amount they'd make (the reward) would be far more in line with the lack of risk. As it should be.

I would also support a very very high tax rate on NPC Corp Players isk'ing in Empire (High-Sec) Space. 50% minimum, 75% would be better, for any player over a set-amount of character-time or skillpoints. That tax would be waved for new and/or low-skillpoint players. Also, as it should be.

Nothing would stop players who want to make more from organizing, forming corps. to work toegtehr for mutual protection in low-sec environments to play their level 4's. Then they'd truly be a part of the EVE Game.

This would also have to go hand-in-hand with development of Null-Sec Sov. Rules to promote more than just "NBSI" and the like. There should be rewards for building more in Null than just a shooting gallery. Currently, Null is very focuissed on shooting everyone, rather than the kind of NRDS, Open to Players who are peaceful, Space Empire Building my own Alliance has oevr the years attempted. Any degradation of High-Sec would need a buff for NRDS Null-Sec to help foster building Null into more than what it is (in the vast majority) today. I should have good reason to let neutrals live in my null, and not just to kill them.
Melangell
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2012-03-06 17:03:23 UTC
it's funny how people read what they want to read.

I'll let you into a secret - null sec PvP players don't like Carebears - and what is more they don't like them in Null any more than they like them in high sec. It's not that they have a problem with PVE per se , we all need to do it to make money to some degree, but what is objectionable is PVE to the exclusion of PvP and high sec is full of people who don't even try to do anything else.

Read more carefully though - a lot of posts are not asking for it to be moved to null - they are asking for it to be removed full stop.

Do I think it should all be nerfed? no. I think 'inflation' and 'isk faucet" have become received wisdom .

If you are 'working' for your isk by anything resembling grinding - you are part of the 99% not the 1% no matter how much you've saved up.

but hey - just like its useful for the banks to see everyone bickering about a few bonuses it suits the 1% for everyone to think incursions are the be all and end all so carry on.....
Fighter26
Orion's Fist
#55 - 2012-03-06 17:35:53 UTC
Sometimes the birdy has to be pushed out of the nest to learn to fly. In this case you are a pod being pushed out of a dead mission-fit raven.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#56 - 2012-03-06 18:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Bill Banner wrote:
Most folks seem to be missing the boat on the whole highsec/nullsec issue.

Let me summarize as I see it; highsec is for folks with limited playtime while nullsec is for folks with the playtime to support it.

Most folks have limited playtime, to encourage more players to migrate to nullsec is to add more content that can be accessed in bite sized chunks with limited disruption - Incursion sites were a step in the right direction. On the other hand, you have established Alliances fully content with the status quo, they just want more targets to keep their people happy - their fix is akin to sending the border collies into highsec to bring the sheep closer.

De-valuing highsec in terms of reducing the amount of bang for the buck as a time to reward ratio will not send hordes of disenfranchised 'carebears' funneling into low/null, it will send them to another game.


Those people could run Forsaken Hubs. Seriously, they take 20 minutes. Who hasn't got 20 minutes?

Answer: Risk-averse highsec-only players obsessed with risk-free wealth for wealth's sake, that's who. I am not just talking about miners here.

This game never needed their collective ISK fountain anyway. Those of us left here will be happier without them, excepting for the prevalence of easy, risk-free targets - in highsec, of course. With any luck CCP's subs will rise in their absence as the gameworld becomes a more compelling place to play.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-03-06 18:29:29 UTC
[quote=Alistair Cononach]..

The amount of isk/reward one can generate in high-sec in an NPC Corp, where risk is exceptionally limited, rivals that of any other form of PvE-based isk-generation in EVE. The drive for players to want/need to put themselves at risk, or better yet to organize, socialize, and group up, simply does not exist. One could make trillions simply PvE'ing Level 4's in a nice, risk-free Sec. 0.5 system, and as long as they don't call attention to themselves via smacktalk, and don;t overly bling their PvE Ship, they ahve almost 100% safety doing so

This is a flaw in game design. The abillity to make isk in High-Sec should be limited, it should be a sacrifice to choose to play only in High-sec, only PvE, in a PvP-centric game like EVE. You should not have access to one fo the ebst and safest sources of isk in the game playing solo, in a risk-free environemnt. It defeats the entire purpose of risk vs. reward

I would support the removal of Level 4's from High-Sec. Max Level 3's would still be grinded by dedicated anti-social anti-risk players, but the amount they'd make (the reward) would be far more in line with the lack of risk. As it should be.

I would also support a very very high tax rate on NPC Corp Players isk'ing in Empire (High-Sec) Space. 50% minimum, 75% would be better, for any player over a set-amount of character-time or skillpoints. That tax would be waved for new and/or low-skillpoint players. Also, as it should be

..

This would also have to go hand-in-hand with development of Null-Sec Sov. Rules to promote more than just "NBSI" and the like. There should be rewards for building more in Null than just a shooting gallery. Currently, Null is very focuissed on shooting everyone, rather than the kind of NRDS, Open to Players who are peaceful, Space Empire Building my own Alliance has oevr the years attempted. Any degradation of High-Sec would need a buff for NRDS Null-Sec to help foster building Null into more than what it is (in the vast majority) today. I should have good reason to let neutrals live in my null, and not just to kill them.[/quote

Bolded the relevant points

For the first, I've always wondered what the current notion people have that PVE income exists in a vacuum, and that "risk v. reward" dictates that 0.0 direct PvE income must be greater than 1.0. Or that "risk v. reward" *really* dictates anything- if that were so, lowsec would probably end up the most profitable space around

System security status governs (among other things) how much you will be exposed to so-called non-consensual fighting (i.e. anything outside a wardec or FW mechanics). Systems are also "Empire/NPC" or "SOV" (i.e. what used to be the actual frontiers). As they move out into PvP oriented areas, why do people expect prime PvE content as well? Why *shouldn't* PvE be relatively even for base (i.e. bounties and LP) income, until you get outside of NPC space where it drops off entirely (and pirate-NPC-null really does need to be made a bit more sensible, with faction ships as the belt rats. If it's "empire but backwards" make it "empre but backwards."). The system already somewhat works this way, it's just that bounties need to be pulled from anything and everything in SoV space unless whoever holds the region pays for it. Yeah, there are a couple sore spots like shiny fleets abusing hisec incursions while lowsec incursions get to deal with rand-o-jerks but PvE is "mostly" ok, just really shallow and stale, and maybe some of the loot tables need minor fiddling to make people who actually like running missions more interested in doing so in lowsec because of better loot

Meanwhile, lowsec already has better prospects for profiting off of industry if you can hold your own in a decent bit of space (especially with the PI changes, but even before that you have better belts, access to moon mining, etc.), and far more for null (best ore, best moons, an easier time than ever to create an insanely secure presence)

For the second- one of the big problems with null is "my null." Got a big alliance parked in SoV space? Then you're all set. Looking to head out to the frontier and make your fortune? At least they have wormholes, because the frontier is long since tamed and the locals aren't going to take kindly to people just passing through (and helping themselves to the resources while they're there). Kill cynos with fire, and a lot of the "NBSI" would likely die down (a loner in a frigate isn't as scary when it really is *just* a loner in a frigate, even if it is a spy). Make jumping require either VERY SPECIFIC targets (pull regular cyno, everything now uses covert cyno, possibly even make supers require a black ops target to give them a reason to exist) or NO targets (but much shorter range, unless you're throwing ships between jump bridges). Once every neutral isn't a possible invasion fleet maybe we can scale back the insane paranoia a bit. That (and a lot of similar efforts to make a bet
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2012-03-06 19:01:06 UTC
Total carebear here, with a little pvp and wormhole experience. I'm not arguing any particular point, but I thought I might describe my own mindset for the sake of discussion.

I can only speak for one, but even if incursions and level 4s were entirely removed, I wouldn't change my playstyle. There's an assumption that everyone who plays EVE operates on the same risk/reward scale and makes their decisions based on that scale.

We're not playing the same game. ISK/hour means nothing to me. Fun/hour does. For some, resources = more toys = fun, and that's fine. That's how most games are built.

For me, it's about coming home from work and being able to pop open a beer and just relax. And guess what? For all its politics and hostility, EVE is the only game I've found that lets me do that. I can play the entire game with only my mouse hand. I can progress through the game with skill plans instead of spell rotations.

Null-sec to me isn't less reward for more risk. It's a different game, with different objectives. I've never played this game, but the (probably half-wrong) impressions I get are:

* More serious players.
* Requires more time, with mandatory operations.
* Politics, both the fun and the petty kind.
* The more friends you have, the better. Small gangs struggle. Solo is out of the question.
* If you're not part of the alliance that owns the space, you'll be shot on sight. And every part is owned and monitored at various times.
* Big blobs of expensive ships vs other big blobs of expensive ships.

I could write more, but you get the idea. The null game sounds interesting, and if I had the time I'd give it a whirl. As it stands, I'm perfectly happy to solo/small gang missions, wormholes, whatever. It's an experience that's unique to EVE, and I'd hate to see it go away.

Meanwhile, I think it's cool that's there's an alternative game sitting a few jumps away. I wouldn't want that one to be changed either.

Any other carebears feel the same?

Occasionally plays sober

Mister Alt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2012-03-06 19:10:24 UTC
There's one thing that always makes me laugh when the null kiddes ***** on about how much isk people make in hisec. If null is so incredibly dangerous why are there so many bots sitting out there ratting 23.5/7 filling peoples wallets with isk? If null doesnt give major rewards then why is moon goo so incredibly lucrative?

In short, if null is the shithole you claim why arent you running missions with everyone else in hisec?

Its simple - they want all the best toys because their playstyle is the "right" playstyle and in their eyes everyone else is doing it wrong.

Yes, they might be the people that invest more time in the game. They might be the ones that make the big selling points for ccp (butterfly effect trailer comes to mind). But I'm sorry, if they think they can have everything then they're just arrogant asshats.
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-03-06 20:13:41 UTC
Jett0 wrote:
Total carebear here, with a little pvp and wormhole experience. I'm not arguing any particular point, but I thought I might describe my own mindset for the sake of discussion

I can only speak for one, but even if incursions and level 4s were entirely removed, I wouldn't change my playstyle. There's an assumption that everyone who plays EVE operates on the same risk/reward scale and makes their decisions based on that scale

We're not playing the same game. ISK/hour means nothing to me. Fun/hour does. For some, resources = more toys = fun, and that's fine. That's how most games are built

For me, it's about coming home from work and being able to pop open a beer and just relax. And guess what? For all its politics and hostility, EVE is the only game I've found that lets me do that. I can play the entire game with only my mouse hand. I can progress through the game with skill plans instead of spell rotations

Null-sec to me isn't less reward for more risk. It's a different game, with different objectives. I've never played this game, but the (probably half-wrong) impressions I get are

* More serious players
* Requires more time, with mandatory operations
* Politics, both the fun and the petty kind
* The more friends you have, the better. Small gangs struggle. Solo is out of the question
* If you're not part of the alliance that owns the space, you'll be shot on sight. And every part is owned and monitored at various times
* Big blobs of expensive ships vs other big blobs of expensive ships

I could write more, but you get the idea. The null game sounds interesting, and if I had the time I'd give it a whirl. As it stands, I'm perfectly happy to solo/small gang missions, wormholes, whatever. It's an experience that's unique to EVE, and I'd hate to see it go away

Meanwhile, I think it's cool that's there's an alternative game sitting a few jumps away. I wouldn't want that one to be changed either

Any other carebears feel the same?


This is much how I currently approach the game, put forth in a much more elegant and much less confrontational fashion than I seem capable of doing. Similarly for many of the folks I spend a few evenings a week chatting with and occasionally even meeting up with to enjoy some relaxing, quickly accessable, and guaranteed senseless destruction of space-pixels

If I want an evening working within complex game mechanics I play a different game (even if it means giving up hi-tech lazors for a sword... at least there aren't any pandas O_o), if I want an evening crushing people's spirits I'll hop on an FPS for more direct collection of tears. EvE offers a bit of all of that, though, as well as a lot of things other games just can't, and constantly trying to change the ways people play (like pushing folks out of hisec, or into nullsec, or through lowsec, or however the argument is being shaped on any given day) is probably a really bad idea (even the things I wish were different, I'd much rather see tried out in some alternate universe before seeing them hit TQ), and instead the effort should be on making more things more appealing (is hi-sec really *that* great that people don't want to go to low-sec, or is it that low-sec is too big a pain?) and fixing the things that are *genuinely* borked (incursions *everywhere* are too farmable, missions *everywhere* are too stale and predictable, corp-war is too easy to avoid (decshields/shedding shenanigans) because it's probably also too easy to initiate (conflict is good, but constantly getting screwed by bully-corps because you're "the little guy" is bad, even if "that's life (in EvE)").