These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Separate the four empires with low security space.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1301 - 2014-03-07 14:08:58 UTC
All those ideas will push profit upwards to the larger groups away from the players who play trading games lone wolf due to their time commitments. I still hold that the only way to get people into losec is by their own choice and that can only be done by giving them better choices and reasons to do so than currently exist.

If you dropped people into losec deadspace to start a mission and then they had to fight their way free I'm pretty sure that would entice more people in to take a crack at them. These missions would be more reward than hisec but less than the losec combat anomalies etc to reflect the initial help in getting to the mission site
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1302 - 2014-03-07 14:23:38 UTC
Sunai Karvinoinas wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You are under the false assumption that every supporter of this idea is a low sec pirate.
No. But I'm sure the supporters are guys, who have only benefits for their way to play the game.

Nowhere in this thread there comes up any compromise. Why? If CCP would like to divide the empire space routes, what major concessions for hisec only players are acceptable without killing lowsec gameplay?
Can transit routes between hisec enclaves be handled another way than deepspace routes?

Let me suggest a 3-step compromise:
(1) - PvE becomes more like PvP in order to reduce the need of completely different fittings and teach all players to pay more attention to the things they do.
- Experienced players and developers create "NPC char skills" and usual fittings for T1/navy issued/Concord ships.
- Concord become vincible but challenging. Navy shoud be vincible already.
- Concord patrols "uplink" gates to higher sec space only with small a bit challenging fleets in sec state 0.4 and 0.3.
- Concord does not roam in lowsec.
- Concord patroles no "downlink" gates to lower or equal security space.
- Concord needs a random time to replace a killed spawn. Time frame for replacement depends on sys sec state.
- Concord will auto aggro only outlaws/criminals (<-5.0 players security state)
- Temporary spawns of factional navy will appear like rat spawns in hisec but a bit more challenging.
- Navy fleets will auto aggro factional enemies only.
- "Downlink" gates will be temporary patroled by factional navy spawns (T1 or navy issued frigates/cruisers/bc).
- From time to time a small navy scout spawns at gates, belts or factional NPC stations (within the own territory only).
- A scout spawn stays a predefined time until it will go away. At gates navy scouts or fleets will stay much longer.
- The max spawn count and size will be limited by system security state.
- Borders between hostile races should be patroled more dense, than space between friendly races.

Nobody should be able permacamp a gate without having several smaller fights against NPC which maybe draw off the attention from transitting travellers possibly. Transitting travellers may have a slightly higher chance to escape.

(2) - There should be several routes with nearly the same hop count between the hisec areas.
- Not only one permacamped route should be reasonable and/or possible. This should reduce the sense of permacamps.

(3) - Building player controlled hisec jump gates to charge toll.

This is superficially a good idea. You probably dont realize that a highly skilled gang can fight both NPC aggro and still manage an effective gate camp. Back before concord was invincible a corp called m0o (credit Rivr) spent weeks tanking and killing concord on one hand and still effectively blockaded high sec gates with the other hand. So it is not plausible, unless CCP puts a lot more work into NPC capabilities, then it still might not work. It is worth a test try though, if CCP fixes NPC skill as NPC really should function more like real players anyway, with ship fitting and tactics.
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1303 - 2014-03-07 14:41:07 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
All those ideas will push profit upwards to the larger groups away from the players who play trading games lone wolf due to their time commitments. I still hold that the only way to get people into losec is by their own choice and that can only be done by giving them better choices and reasons to do so than currently exist.

I disagree and I am not pushing my own pirate or carebear agenda. I spend about 2/3 of time on lone industry stuff and I support this idea. I think most people assume that with lo sec border zones between factions that Jita will still be the mecca of trade. I believe that many people would avoid the low sec jump for the purpose of trade and therefore, start using their local markets and the prices would balance out. I say balance out here because Jita is an anomaly of low prices simply due to competition. Prices elsewhere are much more reliant on manufacturing cost. This would also decrease server load at Jita over time.

The OP did provide a method of free transport to help people resettle their stuff elsewhere. The Op also provides the basis for multiple low sec routes, not just one chokepoint. Finally, inter-faction trading hauling and trading would be more of a high end content for market players- risk vs. reward. Other then where they buy and sell, many high sec players would not really notice any difference after a short teething period.

With my main, I also frequently travel inter-factionally through high sec and it would definitely cause me to work harder and plan better to not get camped. I would probably be the victim at some point of my own support, and I still support it. I want the game to be harder, it is what sets it apart from all the rest.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#1304 - 2014-03-07 14:53:27 UTC
As someone who frequently travels into low sec and could care less about gate camps or pirates I would like to describe this idea in two ways.

1: Annoying. You'll just be concentrating the number of high sec players into smaller pockets. Travel through low sec won't increase significantly, we'll just end up with 4 Jitas, and a lot of traders training into Cloaking IV.

2: Counter-productive. The majority of people in low sec right now fall within two categories: People traveling through low sec to get somewhere else, and the pirates trying to catch those people traveling through. This does nothing to solve the problem that there is very little reason for any other type of player to bother with low sec. Making low sec unavoidable just means that this problem will be exacerbated, and the permanent population in low sec will remain largely unchanged, low sec will remain largely undesirable, and it will still be a bunch of gate campers out there playing grab-*** with no real purpose.

The problem isn't that it's easy to avoid low sec, it's that players have no motivation to go there other than niche activities like moon mining and FW. Fix that, and everything else will follow suit.

Fixing that does not mean nerfing high sec, either. For the love of god, stop trying to nerf high sec. The annoying player base there is enough punishment for anyone except equally damaged individuals to want to find a better alternative. Low sec is worse because they generally don't even need passable social skills since you can't pick and choose your bedfellows when you've only got a handful to work with.

People will follow the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this scenario already exists for them. Jita, Hek, Rens, Amarr, and Dodixie.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.
WaterMarks
The Keywork
#1305 - 2014-03-07 14:58:39 UTC
i like and hate this idea...

one thing i do disagree with is people saying that multiple routes through this lowsec would counter th effect of ckoke points and camp spots...

there is enough eve players to camp as much low sec points as they can place... and they will camp those points

-Fly Reckless-
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#1306 - 2014-03-07 15:05:31 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
As someone who frequently travels into low sec and could care less about gate camps or pirates I would like to describe this idea in two ways.

1: Annoying. You'll just be concentrating the number of high sec players into smaller pockets. Travel through low sec won't increase significantly, we'll just end up with 4 Jitas, and a lot of traders training into Cloaking IV.

2: Counter-productive. The majority of people in low sec right now fall within two categories: People traveling through low sec to get somewhere else, and the pirates trying to catch those people traveling through. This does nothing to solve the problem that there is very little reason for any other type of player to bother with low sec. Making low sec unavoidable just means that this problem will be exacerbated, and the permanent population in low sec will remain largely unchanged, low sec will remain largely undesirable, and it will still be a bunch of gate campers out there playing grab-*** with no real purpose.

The problem isn't that it's easy to avoid low sec, it's that players have no motivation to go there other than niche activities like moon mining and FW. Fix that, and everything else will follow suit.

Fixing that does not mean nerfing high sec, either. For the love of god, stop trying to nerf high sec. The annoying player base there is enough punishment for anyone except equally damaged individuals to want to find a better alternative. Low sec is worse because they generally don't even need passable social skills since you can't pick and choose your bedfellows when you've only got a handful to work with.

People will follow the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this scenario already exists for them. Jita, Hek, Rens, Amarr, and Dodixie.

I agree with you completely and I still support low sec border zones. The reason is it just make the game more challenging, which is what sets Eve apart from all the other games. I would add one more type of reason to go to low sec - to kill the pirate gate campers. The tears from pirates when a "blob" * passes through their systems make me happy happy happy. * Any fleet of about 80%-120% of the gate campers seems to qualify as a blob to them.
Sunai Karvinoinas
#1307 - 2014-03-07 15:16:26 UTC
JetStream Drenard wrote:
This is superficially a good idea. You probably dont realize that a highly skilled gang can fight both NPC aggro and still manage an effective gate camp. Back before concord was invincible a corp called m0o (credit Rivr) spent weeks tanking and killing concord on one hand and still effectively blockaded high sec gates with the other hand. So it is not plausible, unless CCP puts a lot more work into NPC capabilities, then it still might not work. It is worth a test try though, if CCP fixes NPC skill as NPC really should function more like real players anyway, with ship fitting and tactics.
I agree with this. There will be a lot of balancing needed. Especially in order to keep Concord strength or value in hisec. But maybe this way could be worth to be followed.

I think, paying attention to NPC A.I. could improve game experience for casual and power gamers. I spent only a few words, because this suggestion is already out there in this forum. Means: Make PvE more like PvP. Make it a challenge everywhere. Balance it well for hisec belt rats. Belt rats should become slightly to well experienced fighters.
Factional navy gangs could spawn in hisec too. In example make it an inverted view against belt rats.

If there are huge gangs out there who can check all possible routes and all Concord spawns they are worth to control the routes. Give us (much) more routes between empire space, which are usable equally. ;)

My suggestion talks about distraction not to make lowsec to a further highsec.
Also I want not make ultra high sec (0.8 and above) less secure. It's only thinking about smoother borders, but it's always a balancing issue of course.

Maybe we can find a way more in the middle. Getting a big picture instead of lonely pixels only. ;)

---

The topic sounds more like a suggestions what will paying profit to a group of players only. I cannot support a suggestion what not takes advantages for all players in any way.
And all the discussion only shows a cold war between hostile parties. This might not be the case, but it looks like that. That's no cosntructive discussion so far.
Roland Cassidy
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1308 - 2014-03-07 15:20:39 UTC
I'm a proponent of the idea that if an area has a valuable resource, people will go there and they will attempt to gather that resource in the manner that poses them the least amount of risk available given the opportunity and knowledge to do so.

This is why we have Cloaked and stabbed condors running LP sites in FW. Because its effective, relatively risk free and earns well. At the moment beyond FW areas there's no reason for a low to mid tier player to do anything but fight in Lowsec. And those low/mid tier players aren't lining up to lose ships to a off grid boosted gang. Non FW lowsec has nothing resembling an incentive as it stands. Even full time Pirate types have an extreme difficulty at the lowest end of SP because there are no small sites for low end frigates to work and consequently no reliable way to grind sec status back without the assistance of larger allies, eliminating opportunities to play the game at all in Highsec without an alt and no isk well from which they can use to replace their ships at this tier.

It's petty posturing and there's room to say "well being a fulltime pirate has to have drawbacks and the consequences of low sec status exist for a reason" but the point here is that there's no low end opportunities for newer players out there. A situation that is mirrored in Null as well. I think there should be content options for every section of space for all tiers of players. Not just in Highsec with Missions.

Give the people a reason to be in lowsec and that will be a nice start to improving the population, not ham handing a requirement to fly in these zones between empires. Better content not more restrictive content please.

"Watashi no Tao wa magarikunetta michidesu. Watashi wa toraedokoro no nai, heiwa o motome, samayoimasu."

(Trans) "My Tao is a winding path. I wander, seeking an elusive peace. "

浪人
claritalia
SERUM OF TRUTH
#1309 - 2014-03-07 17:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: claritalia
What an absolutely horrible idea.. How in anyones mind would they think this to be good ? There are so many negatives to this. let me list just a couple

1. the pricing on everything would skyrocket. There is so much materials moved between the empires its stupid. This would cause a domino effect that would take years if at all for the market to adjust or compensate.

2. All those low sec system would become choke points....Rancer enough said.

3. it would literally empty out the other factions as long as jita continued to be the trade hub.

4. all this to improve one specific type of game play ? really ??? Ugh
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1310 - 2014-03-07 19:31:51 UTC
claritalia wrote:
What an absolutely horrible idea.. How in anyones mind would they think this to be good ? There are so many negatives to this. let me list just a couple

1. the pricing on everything would skyrocket. There is so much materials moved between the empires its stupid. This would cause a domino effect that would take years if at all for the market to adjust or compensate.

2. All those low sec system would become choke points....Rancer enough said.

3. it would literally empty out the other factions as long as jita continued to be the trade hub.

4. all this to improve one specific type of game play ? really ??? Ugh


I don't belie that people haven't figured out Rancer yet.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1311 - 2014-03-07 20:24:02 UTC
claritalia wrote:

2. All those low sec system would become choke points....Rancer enough said.

I've been through Rancer quite a few times in the last few months. Never died once, and I don't think there were ever more than 5 or 6 people in the system. One time I was literally the only one there.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#1312 - 2014-03-07 22:31:16 UTC
claritalia wrote:
What an absolutely horrible idea.. How in anyones mind would they think this to be good ? There are so many negatives to this. let me list just a couple

1. the pricing on everything would skyrocket. There is so much materials moved between the empires its stupid. This would cause a domino effect that would take years if at all for the market to adjust or compensate.

2. All those low sec system would become choke points....Rancer enough said.

3. it would literally empty out the other factions as long as jita continued to be the trade hub.

4. all this to improve one specific type of game play ? really ??? Ugh



1. LOL what are you smoking? Years to compensate? Real world economies don't take years to adjust to changes, good lord.

2. You add more routes between empires; solved.

3. The whole premise is that there would now be multiple trade hubs, Jita would, for obvious reasons, be Caldari's trade hub only.

4. No, it improves them all. More total low sec systems reduces the distribution of players in said low sec systems, therefore reducing risk as a whole to pilots in low sec. It adds value and excitement to professions like hauling, mining, and producing which are all currently quite dreadful.

Sitting in hi sec all day is horrible. Adding more low sec and more reasons for players to be in low sec is a great thing.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1313 - 2014-03-07 23:57:18 UTC
If I were king I'd pull concord out of all sub 0.8 sec systems.
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#1314 - 2014-03-08 00:27:30 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Sitting in hi sec all day is horrible. Adding more low sec and more reasons for players to be in low sec is a great thing.


I'll point out that this is your point of view, and other might not share it; everyone has different play styles and desires for what they want to game to be, the challenge is accommodating for them all.

Though in saying that, there could be a very possible reason for people who live in high-sec to be so low-sec averse, they could have the entirely different picture of how low-sec is, ether through past experience with bad luck, or being given the wrong idea and never tested it for them selves.

Again, there should be a system in place that GIVES people a reason to visit low-sec, and not FORCE them to. (IE see my previous post a page back or so)
This isn't the black and white issue that a lot of people are playing it as, each group will need to compromise to achieve a system that everyone/the vast majority is happy with.

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1315 - 2014-03-08 10:19:57 UTC
I like that this has turned into a reasoned discussion on both sides. The key thing I take from this is that there needs to be more of a *reason* for people to choose to go through losec. Some believe that is best served by splitting hisec, an equal number utterly disagree. I have a feeling that the silent group here will be the new characters (which I still think I am) who don't generally chat in these forums. They would be heavily impacted by separating hisec but would also benefit most by having good fresh reasons to visit losec

Imagine a new player being tutored into say a frigate after being given fitting clues in the mission brief to be dropped into losec, execute a PvP style NPC one on one, gather good loot then have to make there way clear of losec. The feeling of success the first time they manage it would almost certainly make them want to stay *and* want more of losec. I think that hybric missions are probably the best way to get people into losec. these could be brought in as part of the long needed PvE overhaul.

This kind of mission would be hi risk and hi reward for a new player (wait...I got loot worth 4 mil??? That would take me ages in the venture!) but not worth it for older players. The mission levels could introduce more and more risk/reward which ultimately would lead more players to sign up full time and travel through losec with dangerous intentions.

Other constructive suggestion on how to get people (older and newer players) to choose to cross the borders would be welcome :)

For me it has to be just that though, a choice. And not one forced on players by damaging the economy they work within to make it untenable otherwise. If player are forced into losec travel they will resent it, if they are given a new fresh reason to go they will love it.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1316 - 2014-03-08 10:47:57 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If player are forced into losec travel they will resent it, if they are given a new fresh reason to go they will love it.

Players are not forced into low sec right now and they resent it, so there would be no change in that mindset.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1317 - 2014-03-08 10:53:20 UTC
Some players...I like losec for its opportunities but there will always be those who dislike every area. They won't change their minds and they won't change their playstyle and nor should they have too. I'm interested in more ways to get those players who would be interested to actually take the plunge (including new players with even just a weeks training). It doesn't take many people changing their habits to make a big difference.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1318 - 2014-03-08 11:10:39 UTC
Phaade wrote:


3. The whole premise is that there would now be multiple trade hubs, Jita would, for obvious reasons, be Caldari's trade hub only.

There are multiple trade hubs. The rest of your points are a joke or irrelevant. This whole proposal is just a 'nerf highsec' idea.

That said, the idea's about PvE more like PvP are good, of course CCP has already signed onto that general concept years ago and nothing has really changed. And that idea is independent of the nerf highsec crowd calling for more lowsec space.
OSGOD
Siren's calll
#1319 - 2014-03-08 12:14:03 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
GizzyBoy wrote:
join test
concord's not getting in the way of them hitting freighters
300 + so far?


Sounds like extremely boring emergent gameplay.

Wouldn't you rather be a pirate in a armada of warships trying to take down the caravan of cargo haulers? Or maybe you and a small band of frigates are cruising the space lanes looking for a lone trader who has stuffed his cargo hold with the federation navy stasis webs that are in short supply in jita.

Instead of filling the freighter, setting destination, clicking autopilot, then halfway their you get your massive ship bumped like a tennis ball underwater while a group of ships 1 shot you which interrupts you watching tv.

I wanna be a pirate, not some guy who runs around looking for asshats running missions to gank or to play grabass with other so called "pirates".

I wanna be a adventurous trader looking to make my fortune using my wits to navigate dangerous deep space without pouring over data tables and spread sheets trying to manipulate prices by moving **** from homogenous trade hub to trade hub.


LMAO then get a ******* freighter and make runs out to nullsec , or better take your ******* idea and go join that fuckhead soundwave
Sunai Karvinoinas
#1320 - 2014-03-09 11:12:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
There are multiple trade hubs. The rest of your points are a joke or irrelevant. This whole proposal is just a 'nerf highsec' idea.

That said, the idea's about PvE more like PvP are good, of course CCP has already signed onto that general concept years ago and nothing has really changed. And that idea is independent of the nerf highsec crowd calling for more lowsec space.
I can sign this. We need no further "Nerf the highsec" thread in new clothes only. There are a huge amount of players who not want the highsec nerfed or changed. Maybe they never respond here, because it's a f****** stupid idea and they hope, CCP will ignore.

I'm a casual hisec only player. With the given options and the hard cutted border between high and low I have no reason to go there. I want not get forced to change my (lazy, unattentive and chilling) gameplay for. I want not get forced in any way to do anything.

I would not change my gameplay and leaving highsec, if lowsec borders would be set up. I had a smaller amount of room to play. If it's getting boring more, I'd leave the game. I'm sure a lot of guys will do that earlier than running lowsec.
In this case I do not think about economy anymore. Because it will affect CCPs RL economy so far.

You may leave the idea, EvE would be a PvP only game anymore. I would not play it, if it still would be.

So stop creating "nerf the highsec" threads and start improving the game with fresh ideas, worth to talk about for all players instead a group of them searching for singlesided advantages only.