These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A High Sec Manifesto
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#21 - 2011-10-26 09:17:04 UTC
Xorv wrote:
In a general sense I like most of this, but I think a fundamental change that's needed is that almost all new resources and ISK be generated outside the protection of the all powerful Concord. That's mining, NPC bounties, mods, salvage, drone minerals, mission payouts. High Sec then becomes a place for processing, manufacturing, and trade. With additional training areas for brand new players including the lower level missions and Rats...


The trouble with this is that you're looking for ways to push people out of hi-sec. Now I'm all about asking CCP to add things that entice people out of hi-sec (and ofc fix things that push them out of null/lo) but the core thesis of my post is that we need to stop "punishing" people for wanting to play in hi-sec.

We need to accept that there are people who aren't necessarily raging carebears, but who simply want to play in hi-sec; people who only have an hour or two to play at a time. People who like socialising with strangers. People who like RP. There are good and sufficient reasons for people to want to stay in hi-sec other than merely hiding behind CONCORD.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
#22 - 2011-10-26 09:19:30 UTC
Very well thought out set of ideas, +1 from me.

I especially agree with the idea of bigger gradation of risk / reward even within highsec, and I like your suggestions of how to achieve that.

One other idea I'd like to add is tax.

To me it makes sense from a lore perspective that the more secure the space is you live in, the higher tax rate you should experience. So any transaction / activity in a 1.0 sec system should get taxed at a higher rate than in a 0.5 system (and yes I mean any transaction - market buys and sells, PI export tax, bounties, mission rewards, the whole lot). If implemented at the right rates, this would provide additional incentive to move to lower sec areas, and could even help boost nullsec by allowing for higher profits from trade and industry if done in null.

You could call it an "Empire Tax", and the rate could be affected by standings toward the faction with sovereignty in the system you're performing the taxable activity in (but never reduced to nil). So 0.0 would have a nil "Empire Tax rate" and therefore be most profitable, while 1.0 could have a base Empire Tax rate of say 25%.

It's not going to stop people from carebearing if they want to be "safe", but it will provide a nudge in the right direction while also acting as an isk sink and potentially encouraging more nullsec trade hubs.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2011-10-26 09:23:23 UTC
MaiLina KaTar wrote:
Good ****, dude. Few things I kinda have my gripes with...

Malcanis wrote:
(5) "Carebears". These are players - often with significant assets and skills - who simply won't accept the risk of losing a ship to PvP at any price, regardless of other considerations. Economic, gameplay and game balance considerations are not of interest to them; the idea that other players can destroy their ship is revolting to them.

The reality is: If losing a ship doesn't serve a purpose for the owner, you can't reasonably expect him to expose it to situations where such losses can and will occur "cause it's a pvp game".
Obviously, the majority of players who invested billions in isk and weeks in playtime into their (PvE) rigs will not take the risk of potential pvp encounters if the projected profit isn't absurdly high. And their reasons are perfectly valid. Despite the general consensus on this forum, most players are not dumb. When the deck isn't stacked in their favour, they'll look for alternatives and rightly so. Whatever you change gameplay-wise will change not one iota here. Stripping the alternatives will accomplish nothing except lowering subcount.

For example you have the industrial types, who are all too often labeled "carebear" out of sheer ignorance. They're in it for the isk only, and they'll do whatever it takes to prevent losing ships to pvp encounters. It's not fear, ignorance or some mental disorder, it's industrial players maximizing in their particular profession. They're doing it right.

The "carebear" as you define it here needs not to be worried about. He doesn't exist beyond a few nutcases who aren't relevant either way.

Malcanis wrote:
One idea that occurred to me was: reintroduce level 5 missions to hi-sec, but make the mission deadspaces themselves lo-sec areas. This preserves the concept of level 5s only being available to those willing to risk PvP, but makes them easily accessible. We could also introduce 4/10 and 5/10 plexes which are nullsec within the deadspace. This would give the casual players a chance to experience the high-end PvE available, and also enjoy a little bit of thrilling danger.

This is a great concept. However, it'll remove even more players from the low-/nullsec areas since highsec becomes even more attractive.

Another serious problem is the fact that in areas with high population density you'd be absolutely stupid to fly PvE encounters where you know you'll have a very high chance of dying to PvP fitted raiders. Best case, there would be little to incentive to play these things in highsec for the average player. The pvp-addicted minority might welcome the change, but in the great scheme of things not much would change except less people in lowsec.


Note that a hi-sec level 5 agent would necessarily pay rather less than one based in lo-sec - this is significant when the rewards for L5s are primarily the LP. The risk side of the equation is complex; the high sec system will have more people in it, but fewer of them will be actively looking to attack you. It's also worth noting that anyone aggressing someone in a lo-sec deadspace is stuck inside that deadspace until their GCC clears. That might lead to some extremely interesting gameplay possibilities, with pirates hunting mission runners being stuck inside a fixed area for 15 minutes.

It would also answer the long-standing desire by mission runners to be able to shoot savlagers taking "their" salvage.

Personally, I don't think you'll find all that many 0.0 players giving up the chance to run 8/10 and 10/10s in a quiet bit of 0.0 for the opportunity to do 5/10s in a busy hi-sec area.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#24 - 2011-10-26 09:42:13 UTC
Zyrbalax III wrote:
Very well thought out set of ideas, +1 from me.

I especially agree with the idea of bigger gradation of risk / reward even within highsec, and I like your suggestions of how to achieve that.

One other idea I'd like to add is tax.

To me it makes sense from a lore perspective that the more secure the space is you live in, the higher tax rate you should experience. So any transaction / activity in a 1.0 sec system should get taxed at a higher rate than in a 0.5 system (and yes I mean any transaction - market buys and sells, PI export tax, bounties, mission rewards, the whole lot). If implemented at the right rates, this would provide additional incentive to move to lower sec areas, and could even help boost nullsec by allowing for higher profits from trade and industry if done in null.

You could call it an "Empire Tax", and the rate could be affected by standings toward the faction with sovereignty in the system you're performing the taxable activity in (but never reduced to nil). So 0.0 would have a nil "Empire Tax rate" and therefore be most profitable, while 1.0 could have a base Empire Tax rate of say 25%.

It's not going to stop people from carebearing if they want to be "safe", but it will provide a nudge in the right direction while also acting as an isk sink and potentially encouraging more nullsec trade hubs.



Yeah I should have included trading along with production/research. I think 25% is really far too high. If you put the base post-skill transaction tax at 3% for a 1.0 system and lowered it by 0.5 per sec, so that it was 0.0% in 0.4 or lower, that would be sufficient to trigger a movement towards 0.5 sec systems.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
#25 - 2011-10-26 09:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyrbalax III
Malcanis wrote:

Yeah I should have included trading along with production/research. I think 25% is really far too high. If you put the base post-skill transaction tax at 3% for a 1.0 system and lowered it by 0.5 per sec, so that it was 0.0% in 0.4 or lower, that would be sufficient to trigger a movement towards 0.5 sec systems.


I guess it's safer to set it lower; it can always be raised later if it's not having the desired effect.

Personally I think it should apply *anywhere* in Empire, but be pretty minimal in lowsec whereas in hisec people should actually feel it.

And I think it's important that while you can *reduce* your tax rate by standings, you can't eliminate it altogether (unless you're in 0.0 or w-space ofc)
MaiLina KaTar
Katar Corp
#26 - 2011-10-26 10:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: MaiLina KaTar
Malcanis wrote:
The risk side of the equation is complex; the high sec system will have more people in it, but fewer of them will be actively looking to attack you. It's also worth noting that anyone aggressing someone in a lo-sec deadspace is stuck inside that deadspace until their GCC clears. That might lead to some extremely interesting gameplay possibilities, with pirates hunting mission runners being stuck inside a fixed area for 15 minutes.

It would also answer the long-standing desire by mission runners to be able to shoot savlagers taking "their" salvage.

The way I see it pan out is much rather PvE ships shot down or driven out instantly because they're being attacked by NPCs and PvP fitted raiders simultaneously. Unless you gimp your profits severely via suboptimal fits and / or escort, you will not stand a chance against someone entering your mission and attacking you in a pvp rig. Agression timers won't make much of a difference. The opportunity to retaliate will be answered by the attacker selecting his targets carefully, just blobbing up on them or suicide ganking.
Hence, the decks are stacked heavily against the PvE player because his projected profit is axed by the high risk of various pvp encounters in a high pop density environment. In low-/nullsec it only takes a glance at local chat and a judgement call to mitigate that risk. That alone changes the equation drastically.

That said I'm not against such a change per se. I just believe it wouldn't make a meaningful impact besides less people in lowsec than before. You're simply shifting activity out of lowsec into lowsec pockets in highsec space.

Malcanis wrote:
Personally, I don't think you'll find all that many 0.0 players giving up the chance to run 8/10 and 10/10s in a quiet bit of 0.0 for the opportunity to do 5/10s in a busy hi-sec area.

True.
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-10-26 10:14:47 UTC
Some really good ideas here. My main concern would be too much isk being generated and feeding inflation, however the aims of the whole thing are undeniably good.

But yes, so many things in Null that seriously need fixing/improving first. And i'm not thinking isk faucets either. Basic gameplay problems are what is keeping most I know from going there (again).
Signal11th
#28 - 2011-10-26 10:32:01 UTC
YEAH down the the CSM let's get rid of MIttani!!!!!! oh ..sorry wrong thread!



Good post Malcanis, some nice points. Will digest it a bit better when I stop supposedly working.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#29 - 2011-10-26 13:33:25 UTC
I like what i read, but will note something about Lvl5:

I earn, averaged, some 600-700 million per month.

An optimal fit for a Lvl4 runner (T2/Faction BS with Complex/Faction tank & Faction/T2 gank) costs above 2 billion ISK, and easily 2.5 billion.

So in case I lost my ship, it would take me up to 4 months of playing to get back on my feet. FOUR MONTHS.

I kind of wonder what mentally handicapped person thought that someone like me would either:

- dismiss earning 600 million per month by running lvl5 in ships I can afford to lose or bring in mates & share rewards
- risk to being out of game for 4 months due to a single PvP encounter.
- spend some 100 euros buying GTC to rebuild instantly my lost ship

...just in order to "run Lvl5 the way CCP thought we should". Roll

No way. If I as much as smell a hint of a possibility that there may be a chance of being camped/ninjaed, i will say f**k you to any "reward" that comes to such ginormous risk.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-10-26 14:07:29 UTC
Excellent

No one left behind, no one put on top, chances for everyone to have his fun for the time he can afford playing.

Thx
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#31 - 2011-10-26 14:14:27 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
I like what i read, but will note something about Lvl5:

I earn, averaged, some 600-700 million per month.

An optimal fit for a Lvl4 runner (T2/Faction BS with Complex/Faction tank & Faction/T2 gank) costs above 2 billion ISK, and easily 2.5 billion.

So in case I lost my ship, it would take me up to 4 months of playing to get back on my feet. FOUR MONTHS.

I kind of wonder what mentally handicapped person thought that someone like me would either:

- dismiss earning 600 million per month by running lvl5 in ships I can afford to lose or bring in mates & share rewards
- risk to being out of game for 4 months due to a single PvP encounter.
- spend some 100 euros buying GTC to rebuild instantly my lost ship

...just in order to "run Lvl5 the way CCP thought we should". Roll

No way. If I as much as smell a hint of a possibility that there may be a chance of being camped/ninjaed, i will say f**k you to any "reward" that comes to such ginormous risk.


You might want to consider that your earning potential will be significantly higher if you are doing level 5s. You might also want to consider that if having such an expensive ship so limits your earning potential, then you might actually be better off using a cheaper one. Or maybe have a cheaper ship for the riskier options. You can have more than one ship....

But in any case - it doesn't matter. If you don't enjoy the prospect of taking a risk, that's fine. Carry on as you were. The Manifesto is about offering hi-sec dwellers the choice to engage in risky-but-lucrative gameply at their convenience.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Reislier
#32 - 2011-10-26 15:02:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Introduction:
So given that only a small fraction of hi-sec players are the kind of player that hi-sec was designed for, what needs to change and for whom?

Maybe what needs to change, is the perception of high sec from what it started out to be, to what it actually is.. or has evolved into. Your assessment of high sec today seems very accurate.

It is what it is and what it is attracts the majority of players today.

It seems to me that the real question is in determining how to alter the universe without sending people screaming into the street.

Changes in null, like modifying sov mechanics, would alter the basis for opportunity there but simply discussing the possibility would be met with huge resistance. . and potential street screaming.. people in a niche do hang on tightly.

Likewise in high sec, people have found their niche and will not easily be dislodged.

I’m inclined to view it this way.
Eve is suffering from entrenchment of play styles and it is too far down that road to change now.
Eve customers will most certainly run screaming into the street.. like this summer.

Incentives and disincentives rarely affect a person’s preference in how they play a game.
CCP can change whatever they please, but If I don’t like it.. I have a horny wife that hates Eve anyway.
Refine what is.. in incremental steps, mitigate nerfs to niches.

Introduce new space with natural laws that create new improved niches for the Eve niche seekers. Do some balancing there and build the rules around this space based on lessons learned from high, low, null, and wormhole space.

What would it take to attract players from all niches into closer interaction?
If a new gate popped up on the edge of high sec, what kind of environment would attract everyone?
If there is no answer to that question, then niches are here to stay and the status quo will just have to do.

Be nice. If nice not work, be civil. If civil not work, beat with iron pipe till bloody and still.
Mal Darkrunner
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-10-26 16:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mal Darkrunner
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts in this thread yet, but one point really grabbed my attention ...

It could be really interesting to see a smoother "gradient" between (and within) hi-sec and low-sec, so rather than have a big jump in relative safety between a 0.5 and a 0.4 system (but not much variation between 0.1 and 0.4 or between 0.5 and 1.0), the difference would be more continuous.

For example (very roughly):

  • In a 0.1 system there might not be any station/gate guns, but bubbles would not be anchorable.
  • In a 0.2 system there would be station guns but no gate guns.
  • In a 0.3 system there would be both station guns and gate guns, but they would not be as powerful as those in a 0.4
  • In a 0.4 system there would be more powerful station guns and gate guns, and there would be a small chance of faction navy or pirate navy NPCs spawning when a criminal act takes place
  • In a 0.5 system the faction navy (rather than Concord) would respond in force to criminal acts - sufficiently prepared ships could tank or avoid them for a short period, but would eventually be overwhelmed (the navy might call in Concord reinforcements if they were unable to handle the situation). All hi-sec systems would have powerful gate and station guns.
  • In a 0.6 system Concord would respond to criminal acts, but their response time would be slower than in higher security systems.
  • In a 0.7 system the Concord response time would be quicker, and there would be a very small chance of faction navy patrols appearing at gates and stations (tankable/avoidable if prepared).
  • In a 0.8 system the Concord response time would be quicker and in greater numbers, and there would be a small to medium chance of faction navy patrols at gates and stations (still tankable/avoidable).
  • In a 0.9 system the Concord response time would be quicker still, and there would be a medium to high chance of faction navy patrolling gates and stations, and a small chance of them patrolling asteroid belts.
  • In a 1.0 system the Concord response would be almost instant, there would be constant faction navy patrols at stations and gates, and there would be a good chance of the navy patrolling the belts too.


Moving from a 1.0 system to a 0.5 system (or a 0.4 system to a 0.1 system) would involve a noticable drop in security, and would be accompanied by a comparable increase in potential reward for those willing to deal with the increased risk.

The faction navy patrols in hi-sec systems should not be permanent, but should move around the system periodically (and perhaps unpredictably), and should respond to events that occur on-grid with them (but not off-grid). A can flipper in a 0.9 system might then need to dodge the patrols (so might a suicide ganker), whereas a can-flipper or ganker in a 0.7 system would not. A smuggler could travel relatively safely in a 0.5 system, and could get through 0.8 and 0.9 systems provided they dodged the navy. A 1.0 system would be difficult for them to navigate successfully due to the frequency of navy patrols.

I could add a whole host of other ideas to this, but rather than talk specifics I would prefer to use the above list as an example of the type of change that could be made to make hi-sec and low-sec more interesting.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#34 - 2011-10-26 16:39:35 UTC
That's exactly the kind of gradiated difference I had in mind, but lacked the space and time to spell out (I wrote the OP while in fleet)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kinguard
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-10-26 17:44:14 UTC
Another great post from Malcanis.

Basicly, in my opinion, lowering more secured system earnings and rising lower seciurty system earning in all aspects bounties (i.e killing bounty pays %100 in 0.0 and %95 in 0.1 etc) , missions etc may draw players to lower sec systems.

And after all do not fly what you can not afford. People visited RvB know well about this core idea Pirate
Miraqu
Kneipenterroristen.
#36 - 2011-10-26 18:51:59 UTC
+1 for this from me.

If you are going to tie the risks to the actual security level, why should one not ditch the current low-sec/high sec system entirely?

Which System is highly secure should be seen from the security level. The current distinction is rather between high-sec and (almost) no sec with no real distinctive meaning why 0.5 should be very safe but 0.4 very unsafe.


Most previous posters had very good ideas in that direction.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#37 - 2011-10-26 19:02:54 UTC
Miraqu wrote:
+1 for this from me.

If you are going to tie the risks to the actual security level, why should one not ditch the current low-sec/high sec system entirely?

Which System is highly secure should be seen from the security level. The current distinction is rather between high-sec and (almost) no sec with no real distinctive meaning why 0.5 should be very safe but 0.4 very unsafe.


Most previous posters had very good ideas in that direction.


Interesting proposal... it's more radical than I wanted to be in my OP, but long term, I think you might have something there.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#38 - 2011-10-26 20:04:38 UTC
+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...

You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#39 - 2011-10-26 20:06:01 UTC
Mai Khumm wrote:
+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...

You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM...


Clark's Other Law: Anyone seeking office is axiomatically unsuitable for it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2011-10-26 21:25:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mai Khumm wrote:
+1, great ideas, well constructed and thought out...

You'd have my vote if you ran for CSM...


Clark's Other Law: Anyone seeking office is axiomatically unsuitable for it.


Quoted for absolute truth.

And +1s to your ideas, seems to be very well thought out, everyone gets attention.. well done, good sir.