Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Maybe a better idea would be to have a greater difference in the Hi-Sec zones.

I remember in Elite (yes I'm old) the progression from Mostly Harmless all the way down to Anarchy was a gradual progression with extremes at either end.

In Eve 1.0 - 0.5 are all basically the same mechanic the only differences are the available resources, the rats and the proximity to Lo-sec. From a PvP perspective the the distinction is meaningless and the level of risk in 1.0 is largely the same as in 0.5. Then its a huge ohcrapnowiamgoingtodie jump into 0.4.

I would rather see a gradual progression in the level of risk. In 1.0 you engage in PvP then Concord are gonne nail you to the wall, maybe even before you kill your target. But the further down the scale you go the less effective Concord becomes and sometimes you can even escape them all together..

This would mean that instead of having an all or nothing safety net which actively discourages newbies from engaging in risk they have opportunities to get incrementally better rewards by exposing themselves to incrementally more PvP risk..

Moved from General Discussion.

CONCORD response time is significantly different between 1.0 and 0.5. In 1.0, if the ganker's don't alpha you, they go boom before they get a second shot, so, they have to lose enough ships to ensure the alpha. In 0.5, they can get off several shots before they go boom, allowing them to have way fewer ships go boom for the same payout in loot/salvage. This has a significant effect on the cost, and thus profitability, of a hig sec suicide gank.


That said, I've long been a fan of a more gradual step from high to low to null. Like maybe 1-0.6 = same as current high sec. 0.4-0.5 like current low sec, but no capitals. 0.1-0.3 like current low sec.

And again we see F&I used as a place where threads go to die.

Plex when paid for by real money doesn't change in price. CCP gets that money regardless. CCP also makes the isk you grind away ingame.

Just because YOU bought plex with isk does not mean you gave CCP money. You didn't. Your time is NOT money when you can compare afk mining and other such activities (market trading etc). Keep in mind I'm not insinuating anything, but it's gonna make for a weak argument to say you pay CCP with your time when we are talking about creating content versus playing a more "solo" game for people to "relax" when clearly Eve is about conflict.

I'm sure they had trouble selling PLEX back when it was 300M isk a pop. It's not a bad thing if sometimes the price goes down in price too you know.

It's strange that you get to this point, because that wasn't what I was getting at. But I'll address it anyways.

By all means there should be a safe zone in the game that highseccers can play in. But when you corrupt it through grey-area exploits and turn it into a conflict-free zone you destroy the foundation the game was created on.

You do not get to live in a bubble, because every action you take ripples across the universe. There are checks and balances in this game, you don't get to choose which ones you get to experience because ultimately it will ruin the game for the people who the those checks and balances protect. You don't get to dictate how to play the game because there is nothing people who don't like that playstyle can do about it. The safer than high sec style of play has already been pushing their preferred method of game play on everyone else, and all that they have to show for it is stagnation.

Quoted for Emphasis.

You want more people to PvP, make the consequences suck less.

Seriously, I'd largely be called a Carebear here. When I want to fly my multi billion isk faction battleship around, I stay in high sec. When I want to farm low level worm holes I swap to a MUCH cheaper battleship that's not quite as effective but doesn't bankrupt me to lose. When I want to PvP I snag a frigate swap my clone and pop into low sec for a bit or just wait in station playing another game while my friends mine Frarn. Holy crap is that system good for ganking can tippers.

What I care about FAR more than loosing a multi-billion isk ship is loosing billions of isk in implants and the time it takes to get my clone back into a good state. I have to fly my ass out to Jita, re-buy all of my implants, make sure I got the right ones (otherwise I might not be able to fly all of my fits) get my character set back up, unpause my skill queue and then fly back to whereeverthefuckIwasbefore so i can start grinding L4's to buy a new PvP ship and replace my implants again. While I have infomorph clones, it takes 24 hours to swap so I still use +3's in them. Even if I don't die, that's 24 hours of sub-optimal skill learning just so I can go fart around with cheap ships in an area where I'm pretty much guaranteed to die because someone has a bigger fleet. (While I can swap straight back into the body I left, I still have to make that trip to re-implant the next PvP clone I'm going to use.)


You want me to PvP more often, figure out a way I can easily get into a more PvP like state while still maintaining my PvE perks.



So, to that end, here's a suggestion that might actually work to fix the problem. Virtual Bodies. You rent them at some exorbitant fee and you're limited in the number you can use in a day/week (create a new skill that increases the number of times you can rent a body). Treat it similar to an infomorph clone but while cloned your primary body still recieves stat bonuses from implants slots 1-5. You can only get them in High-Sec and they only last a couple of hours and have to be within X systems of the issuing station. They can't access Wormholes at all. if you die in high sec with a virtual body, you have a chance of frying one of your implants.

This is far more likely to encourage PvP. I get to keep learning skills at the rates I'm accustomed to. My expensive gunnery and +5 implants stay intact (though I don't get their benefits) and you get more targets to shoot at.


The second best thing to do is force PvE players to use PvP fits to complete missions. If I have to tackle my primary target to keep it from leaving the area of engagement, I'm much more prepared to fight in PvP where my defenses are the same instead of MUCH lower as I loose mids slots to webs and scrams.

This goes hand in hand with missions feeling more like PvP engagements. Instead of massive fleets where each ship is so incredibly underpowered they should run the first time I one shot a battleship, have a couple of more well equipped ships that require different skills to take down. Make it clear what it's going to take to complete the mission in the mission text (just say you're likely going to need to neutralize his capicitor as he runs a massive tank).

Making PvP feel less alien to high-sec PvE players will also go a long way towards encouraging more PvP. It would also make the encounters a lot less one sided when a PvE'er does decided to dip their toes in the PvP waters.



So, if you want me to play how you play, incentivize it. If you make my prefered style of play less interesting instead, I'll just find another game. Eve is not all poneytails and cotton candy in high-sec. I have friends that quit over burn Jita because they didn't like how little reprecussion the aggressors suffered. I've lost billions of isk in ships in High sec. The difference, I can consistently earn those billions back (and usually have) before I choose to engage the can tippers or loot theives.


_WAter_

nerfing High sec its not a solution... most probable result will be a mass loss of subs due to indy pilots quiting.
the problem is that low sec gives no incentive for people to go there.
I'm not a miner but instead i`m doing exploration.... for almost 2 weeks now i`ve been living in low sec doing exploration, so let me tell you my conclusions:
- radar site.... don`t even bother with them.... same rewards as high sec.
- grav site useless cause no one mines in low sec.
- ladars are a joke.. u`ll get more isk by belt ratting/looting then doing those in low sec.
-mag sites are about the only thing that offers a true improvement over their high sec counter part... but they are to few and to far inbetween.
- combat site are worth it but sometimes to skill intensive.
As for mining.... i`ve been in 0.4 0.3 systems mostly ..... and the ores u find in the belts are not worth the risk.... i mean the only difference in ores is the jaspet witch is omnipresent in low sec. So unless u go to some 0.2 or 0.1 u wont find better ores then high sec.
Not to mention solo mining in low sec unless u fit a damn good tank witch will kill you're efficiency, can`t be done.

Not all people plays the game the way you do, some people play the game because u can mine and manufacture things or because they ca shot npcs all day or do exploring all day or any other activity.

So as my final point is, if you really want to ask ccp anything you should ask them to improve low sec so that those players that are in high sec will be encouraged to move their favorite activity in game there.

But highsec stays the same nothing gets nerfed, u just need to compete with other players. Theres too much money in highsec as it is. This would make lowsec more viable option to players. It would require a player to be at the computer. If u watch local, run dscan and pay attention you should never loose a ship unless you **** up or are not paying attention.

It might help if lowsec had more to do (I'm looking at you, pirate faction warfare) and more incentive for people to band together and protect each other while they carebear. Lowsec and nullsec need to get way more interesting before we start tossing people out of hisec en masse. I find missioning terribly boring, but if I go to lowsec or nullsec, it still comes down to missioning or ratting. Hardly an improvement. This is why I went to w-space -- more teamwork required and more interesting ways to make isk. Less adventurous people just won't go anywhere, because it's the same grind for barely any improvement in reward and what seems like a huge jump in risk.