These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What is the real problem people have with High Sec?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#41 - 2012-10-18 07:10:52 UTC
HS is Boring :P ^_^

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#42 - 2012-10-18 07:13:14 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


I believe that if the gate mechanics were to change, and put an end to gate camping, more casual players would venture out. If you are in a shootout inside of a structure and every doorway is a fatal funnel, you are not going to want to go through any doorways, but the gate mechanics as they stand create this problem, where every system is a room with doors, and all of them are potential fatal funnels. I know all the "tricks" of avoiding camps and even a few hardly mentioned, but who, not being stationed out there, can stay for the long term? Even the die hards go back to high sec eventually.



God I hate gate camps. As a personal preference I wish when you warped into a new region you could do something like choose any planet or reference point to enter at or something, have a chance to get a feel for the place before venturing further. Obviously this would have catastrophic effects on sov etc... but man do I hate gate camps.
pussnheels
Viziam
#43 - 2012-10-18 07:15:28 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Praxis Ginimic wrote:
High sec is necessary but I would love to see it choked off. One small region for each empire would be perfect.


Interesting idea. Would need to have a huge need to travel between regions (forgive me if there already is one but for casual people like me I generally play within the one area fine) otherwise it might just form 4 little 'islands'.

i don't think it is a good idea , the maintrade routes between the major hubs already have choke points where enterprising people can make a small fortune ganking freighters ,
making those chokepoints low sec will have a serious negative impact on several economic sopurces

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
pussnheels
Viziam
#44 - 2012-10-18 07:19:18 UTC
Imports Plus wrote:
This is the problem with high sec http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

THIS RIGHT HERE- BEHOLD WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CCP

there is nothing stopping you to take a tornado and start ganking them , i can even tell you that 7 out of 10 are not even tanked because they using a 3 MLU in their lowslots or have a false sense of security
Don't believe me , fit a ship scanner and check it out yourself

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#45 - 2012-10-18 07:32:01 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:


They're saying we SHOULDN'T at the same time they're saying they MUST. Read between the lines mate.

What they want is 0.0 "I can kill anybody" PLAYSTYLE ability while they gather highsec cash without highsec repercussions.


PS: I'm the chef tonight so I'll pick this up tomorrow. Hooroo Cool


Please don't get me wrong, I'm am not advocating for a lot of the complaints I've heard regarding high-sec. I think there SHOULD be safe places to make isk in high sec. Period.

Personally at this point I mainly feel that there should be more options for making ISK in null and low that are not so flooded with risk. Eg missioning in low. At the moment I just don't do it. It's not a little bit more risk, it's instantly the full amount of risk (even more given that low is where people looking to just kill someone seem to hang out).

As a casual player I want a good reason to duck into low/null every now and then, but at the moment the only reason I do it is for something different (since the ISK options in low for me personally are a bit low). But usually at the end of it I don't make much ISK, I run away from most fights since I'm outgunned, and I don't play enough hours a week to have decent contacts to call on for help.

PS: Have fun cooking up a storm, cya tomorrow. Smile
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#46 - 2012-10-18 07:34:43 UTC
S'Way wrote:
Imports Plus wrote:


The risk vs. rewards are clearly skewed, but thats ok- defend your afk botting empire to the death!

Bots are just as common in 0.0 as empire. A lot of 0.0 is now safer than empire (intel channels spotting non-blues 2 regions off heading your way isn't uncommon in some areas).

High-sec is just getting more attention now that 0.0 nap trains stagnated it to the point of death.
I left 0.0 after another year out there purely because having half of EvE blue is boring. I would move to low-sec, but the security status grind is just too obnoxious if you need to go to empire to follow targets.


Yeah I'd love to see mechanics that encourage/benefit smaller Alliances over huge ones to keep things interesting, but again I have no null experience so I can't really comment.
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#47 - 2012-10-18 07:36:17 UTC
Alice Saki wrote:
HS is Boring :P ^_^


Yeah this makes me sad. Cry

I really need to join in with FW for the funs.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#48 - 2012-10-18 07:36:43 UTC
If you think about it from the background story point, highsec does belong, as-is, in the EVE Online universe. The central regions are governed by the four NPC empire factions while the outer ring of the galaxy is comprised of lawless space where anything can happen.
Highsec is not risk-free, though; you can still blow other people up and they can do the same to you. And while characters in NPC corps are protected from wardecs, there are still a lot of players who have joined player corporations and alliances that you can declare war on and be able to kill them without CONCORD intervention.
However, the fact that highsec is as profitable as nullsec(as some people have said earlier in this thread) is what needs to be fixed, by either nerfing Highsec's profitability, buffing nullsec's or maybe even both, to an extent. It is indeed a system that needs to be re-balanced.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#49 - 2012-10-18 07:42:01 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Small wonder that nullsec industry is essentaially limited to supercap production (only because there is an artificial limitation on producing supers anywhere else), cap boosters and ratting ammo.

This massive imbalance has far reaching effects. For one thing, no serious alliance will bother encouraging local production. Why should they? It's inefficient, expensive to protect, and the goods can be obtained more cheaply at a single market node in hi-sec and easily transported there. The most efficient thing an alliance can do is to outsource its industrial requirements and only recruit PvPers. A few jump-freighters can supply them with no great difficulty and at less total cost than it would take to produce goods for themselves.

Do you think this state of affairs might possibly have affected the development and culture of 0.0 and attitudes towards hi-sec? In a positive way or a negative way? Do you think the situation could be changed to make EVE better?



Yeah I actually agree with the issues around it being so much easier to manufacture in high-sec. This would be an interesting one to balance as making one significantly better than the other tends to kill one off. In the current state high-sec wins. Improving null sec productions may potentially drop prices below high-sec production costs and kill high sec production.

I've only really dabbled in industry so I don't have much insight, definitely a good point though.


Hi sec will always retain some advantages. I just don't see why it should have all of them.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#50 - 2012-10-18 07:44:05 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Praxis Ginimic wrote:
High sec is necessary but I would love to see it choked off. One small region for each empire would be perfect.


Interesting idea. Would need to have a huge need to travel between regions (forgive me if there already is one but for casual people like me I generally play within the one area fine) otherwise it might just form 4 little 'islands'.

i don't think it is a good idea , the maintrade routes between the major hubs already have choke points where enterprising people can make a small fortune ganking freighters ,
making those chokepoints low sec will have a serious negative impact on several economic sopurces


With low-sec as it is, definitely. I would love to see the mechanics for ganking freighters becoming much more ... difficult? Involved? I have no suggestions for how to do this though. Sad

Edited for failed grammar.
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#51 - 2012-10-18 07:52:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Small wonder that nullsec industry is essentaially limited to supercap production (only because there is an artificial limitation on producing supers anywhere else), cap boosters and ratting ammo.

This massive imbalance has far reaching effects. For one thing, no serious alliance will bother encouraging local production. Why should they? It's inefficient, expensive to protect, and the goods can be obtained more cheaply at a single market node in hi-sec and easily transported there. The most efficient thing an alliance can do is to outsource its industrial requirements and only recruit PvPers. A few jump-freighters can supply them with no great difficulty and at less total cost than it would take to produce goods for themselves.

Do you think this state of affairs might possibly have affected the development and culture of 0.0 and attitudes towards hi-sec? In a positive way or a negative way? Do you think the situation could be changed to make EVE better?



Yeah I actually agree with the issues around it being so much easier to manufacture in high-sec. This would be an interesting one to balance as making one significantly better than the other tends to kill one off. In the current state high-sec wins. Improving null sec productions may potentially drop prices below high-sec production costs and kill high sec production.

I've only really dabbled in industry so I don't have much insight, definitely a good point though.


Hi sec will always retain some advantages. I just don't see why it should have all of them.


One of my biggest issues around high-sec manufacturing is that it doesn't encourage the level of player interaction that is required in null in the form of setting up places to manufacture, defending said places, defending freighters, requiring fuel for POS's etc etc, so that when you compare the two it's a legitimate question to ask 'Why would I go to all that effort when I can just make it in high-sec and freight it in?'.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-10-18 07:52:15 UTC
The issue also lies around how the statistics are gathered. When they say 80% of the population lives in hi-sec, is that 80% of characters or players?

I'd be curious to know what the stats are based on the following criteria.

* Player has 1 or more chars that live/operate in null, then player is classed as null-sec, all other alts are ignored for further stats
* Player has 1 or more chars that live/operate in low, player is classed as low-sec and all other alts ignored.
* Player only has chars that live and operate in hi-sec, player classed as hi-sec

The other issue is the player mentality, the low-sec/null-sec people who complain about hi-sec are those that view hi-sec as a massive loot pinata and want to get their hands on those juicy targets. But the issue is they don't want to fight and attack a players PVP character, what they really want to do is go after that players other PVE character, because that's the easy fight they can win.

...

John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#53 - 2012-10-18 07:53:18 UTC
The people crying about High Sec really need to take a moment and look at themselves. What could it be about their play style that puts people off going to Low? Don't moan about a lack of targets when you won't leave those alone that want to PVE in peace and/or outnumber those looking for some solo PVP by 5-1.

There's no fun in constantly getting beaten without having a real chance.

I think High Sec is fine as is. Even there though people try to bait you. I had some cheeky little tosser warp into my mission last night and try and steal my phat lootz. I warped my Noctis in on an alt and nabbed it all, so he then tried dropping a container amongst the salvage hoping I'd not realise and take from it so he could shoot me. I finished the mission and popped my own container which I named 'F*ck you. C*nt'.

I was quite pleased with myself TBH.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Tao Dolcino
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-10-18 07:54:17 UTC
Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

We can say that people in high sec can make too much money, or that people in low/null sec should more money, but nerving high sec will only result in losing players, for there are people who simply don't want to play in a dangerous environment, and i think that we should respect their wish.
So indeed there's not enough incentive to take more risk and go in low/null sec. That's totally clear. For my part i spend most of my time in low sec because i have fun there, but i am totally aware that my way to have fun is not the only way. I would certainly make as much money as i do in high sec.

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

I have no idea, i'm not at all into mining/industry/market, sorry

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Of course, but for my part, i have no fun fighting harmless people who don't desire to fight. That's why i've joined the FW or seek fights against pirates, to have fights against players who (at least theorically) seek fights too. So maybe the goal is not only to motivate people to go in low/null sec, but also to motivate them to pvp. I mean motivate concretly (interesting source of income) instead of just for the fun.

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

I totally disagree with that. I think that variety is what is making the game (and the world) rich and interesting. The so called "tough" guys from low/null sec who play the hardcore survivors in a so called "harsh" environment, they too use safe ways to make regular ISK, in order to finance their pvp. Everyone needs it, so let us stop the comedy about courageous low/null sec players and coward carebears from high sec. It's just plain hypocrisy.

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)

Of course. Mainly, you go to low/null sec to have fun. If you just want to make ISK you can do it very well in high sec.
As i already said, it's not enough to motivate people to go in low/null sec. We must also motivate them to fight there. I think that, for example, reducing the difference between pve and pvp fits is one very good step. People who will go to low/null sec to make their money must have a good chance to survive there, and not only be the sitting ducks to entertain low/null sec actual players. We should work on finding a common ground where people from both "sides" would have a good reason to interact. But for that we have first to get rid of the actual snobism and disdain most players from low/null sec have for players from high sec. And that it far from being won...
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#55 - 2012-10-18 08:04:27 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
The issue also lies around how the statistics are gathered. When they say 80% of the population lives in hi-sec, is that 80% of characters or players?

I'd be curious to know what the stats are based on the following criteria.

* Player has 1 or more chars that live/operate in null, then player is classed as null-sec, all other alts are ignored for further stats
* Player has 1 or more chars that live/operate in low, player is classed as low-sec and all other alts ignored.
* Player only has chars that live and operate in hi-sec, player classed as hi-sec

The other issue is the player mentality, the low-sec/null-sec people who complain about hi-sec are those that view hi-sec as a massive loot pinata and want to get their hands on those juicy targets. But the issue is they don't want to fight and attack a players PVP character, what they really want to do is go after that players other PVE character, because that's the easy fight they can win.


Would be great stats to see. Would also be interesting to see (though not sure how it would be possible) what areas have multiple accounts.

Lol, yeah, who wants to fight someone who might beat them when there are easy kills to be had P Especially when the rewards are pretty similar for both...
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#56 - 2012-10-18 08:10:20 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
The people crying about High Sec really need to take a moment and look at themselves. What could it be about their play style that puts people off going to Low? Don't moan about a lack of targets when you won't leave those alone that want to PVE in peace and/or outnumber those looking for some solo PVP by 5-1.

There's no fun in constantly getting beaten without having a real chance.

I think High Sec is fine as is. Even there though people try to bait you. I had some cheeky little tosser warp into my mission last night and try and steal my phat lootz. I warped my Noctis in on an alt and nabbed it all, so he then tried dropping a container amongst the salvage hoping I'd not realise and take from it so he could shoot me. I finished the mission and popped my own container which I named 'F*ck you. C*nt'.

I was quite pleased with myself TBH.



Yep, if we want more targets we need to give those targets a damn good reason for being there, and a fighting chance to at least survive with their PvE winnings let alone fight back.

One of my favourite ways to counter baiters is to waste as much of their time as I can. Pretend I'm about to fall for the bait etc. Had some people trying to bait me into heading into a nearby low-sec system a while back by wanting to join up to fight them. Pretty sure they spent almost 3 hours waiting while I was 'finishing with this site' and 'brb getting my pvp ship' etc. Only wish I actually had the firepower to get in there and give em a fight, but we all know I would just die to a 4v1 instantly.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#57 - 2012-10-18 08:16:52 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Small wonder that nullsec industry is essentaially limited to supercap production (only because there is an artificial limitation on producing supers anywhere else), cap boosters and ratting ammo.

This massive imbalance has far reaching effects. For one thing, no serious alliance will bother encouraging local production. Why should they? It's inefficient, expensive to protect, and the goods can be obtained more cheaply at a single market node in hi-sec and easily transported there. The most efficient thing an alliance can do is to outsource its industrial requirements and only recruit PvPers. A few jump-freighters can supply them with no great difficulty and at less total cost than it would take to produce goods for themselves.

Do you think this state of affairs might possibly have affected the development and culture of 0.0 and attitudes towards hi-sec? In a positive way or a negative way? Do you think the situation could be changed to make EVE better?



Yeah I actually agree with the issues around it being so much easier to manufacture in high-sec. This would be an interesting one to balance as making one significantly better than the other tends to kill one off. In the current state high-sec wins. Improving null sec productions may potentially drop prices below high-sec production costs and kill high sec production.

I've only really dabbled in industry so I don't have much insight, definitely a good point though.


Hi sec will always retain some advantages. I just don't see why it should have all of them.


One of my biggest issues around high-sec manufacturing is that it doesn't encourage the level of player interaction that is required in null in the form of setting up places to manufacture, defending said places, defending freighters, requiring fuel for POS's etc etc, so that when you compare the two it's a legitimate question to ask 'Why would I go to all that effort when I can just make it in high-sec and freight it in?'.


Precisely. 0.0 industry needs some compelling advantages to match those of hi-sec. The most obvious would be production efficiency and material efficiency bonuses.

Looking at a slightly bigger picture, player built outposts need a massive buff so that they're at least not worse than hi-sec stations. EG: number of manufacturing slots, office slots etc. Personally I favour making outposts much more modular, and massively reducing the cost of upgrades. So rather than have a "Minmatar Outpost" which has a strictly limited set of capabilities, you have a "Minmatar Outpost Core" which has a refining bonus, which you can add on a number of production modules or office modules or whatever. And a Minmatar outpost should potentially be the absolute best place to refine anywhere in EVE (Which would mean reducing the potential best NPC refinery to less than 100%)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#58 - 2012-10-18 08:20:04 UTC
Tao Dolcino wrote:
Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

We can say that people in high sec can make too much money, or that people in low/null sec should more money, but nerving high sec will only result in losing players, for there are people who simply don't want to play in a dangerous environment, and i think that we should respect their wish.
So indeed there's not enough incentive to take more risk and go in low/null sec. That's totally clear. For my part i spend most of my time in low sec because i have fun there, but i am totally aware that my way to have fun is not the only way. I would certainly make as much money as i do in high sec.

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

I have no idea, i'm not at all into mining/industry/market, sorry

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Of course, but for my part, i have no fun fighting harmless people who don't desire to fight. That's why i've joined the FW or seek fights against pirates, to have fights against players who (at least theorically) seek fights too. So maybe the goal is not only to motivate people to go in low/null sec, but also to motivate them to pvp. I mean motivate concretly (interesting source of income) instead of just for the fun.

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

I totally disagree with that. I think that variety is what is making the game (and the world) rich and interesting. The so called "tough" guys from low/null sec who play the hardcore survivors in a so called "harsh" environment, they too use safe ways to make regular ISK, in order to finance their pvp. Everyone needs it, so let us stop the comedy about courageous low/null sec players and coward carebears from high sec. It's just plain hypocrisy.

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)

Of course. Mainly, you go to low/null sec to have fun. If you just want to make ISK you can do it very well in high sec.
As i already said, it's not enough to motivate people to go in low/null sec. We must also motivate them to fight there. I think that, for example, reducing the difference between pve and pvp fits is one very good step. People who will go to low/null sec to make their money must have a good chance to survive there, and not only be the sitting ducks to entertain low/null sec actual players. We should work on finding a common ground where people from both "sides" would have a good reason to interact. But for that we have first to get rid of the actual snobism and disdain most players from low/null sec have for players from high sec. And that it far from being won...


Firstly thanks for the great well thought out post. You sound exactly like the kind of player I thought I would be a few years back, I really need to get myself involved in FW so I can get involved in a bit of non-one-sided PvP.

I actually really like the point about PvE vs PvP fits. Would be amusing for PvEers to have to scram rats to stop them warping out when they get to hull Big smile
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#59 - 2012-10-18 08:33:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Precisely. 0.0 industry needs some compelling advantages to match those of hi-sec. The most obvious would be production efficiency and material efficiency bonuses.

Looking at a slightly bigger picture, player built outposts need a massive buff so that they're at least not worse than hi-sec stations. EG: number of manufacturing slots, office slots etc. Personally I favour making outposts much more modular, and massively reducing the cost of upgrades. So rather than have a "Minmatar Outpost" which has a strictly limited set of capabilities, you have a "Minmatar Outpost Core" which has a refining bonus, which you can add on a number of production modules or office modules or whatever. And a Minmatar outpost should potentially be the absolute best place to refine anywhere in EVE (Which would mean reducing the potential best NPC refinery to less than 100%)


Yeah. I guess my concern would be brining in changes to make null sec indy good without completely screwing over entry level high sec indy players by just flat out competing with them. Artificial barriers like only allowing T2 production in POS's or something could work but I don't know if this would make T2 production a bit too exclusive. They could devise an entire production tree that slowly requires people to move further out, but that would require huge changes to the current system.
Tao Dolcino
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-10-18 08:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tao Dolcino
One thing i have forgotten to write in my last post :
The inhabitants of low/null sec have a big responsability in the process to attracting new blood into low/null sec :
Welcoming the new players, making sure that they won't become simple slaves or won't die of boredom by involving them fully in the corporation's life and fights is, imo, essential.
I know that many low/null sec corporations already do that, and i'm very thankfull.
But there are way too many low/null corporations who restrict their recruitment to chars with already high SP/pvp experience. That doesn't help to fill the gap between low sec and high sec.
High sec is where everyone starts. If you want more high sec players to go in low sec, recruit them and give them an interesting and fun life there !

Edit : oh, and by the way, in the same spirit, please open your fleets to T1 frigates/cruisers, T1 fitted, so everyone can participate and get used to lose ships without big stress. They don't make enough dps ? ok, but they make more dps than if they were not here.
Give them some funny roles in fights. Let them learn by having fun and watching what experienced are doing from inside of the battlefield !