These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

you want more people going to nullsec? then buff highsec!

First post First post
Author
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#1 - 2013-09-05 12:40:03 UTC
it is a missleading idea that buffing nullsec and nerfing highsec will lead to more people going to null, the main reason so many are in highsec is just the risk going to nullsec and the high amount of ISK lost when going there... buffing highsec will reduce the risk because of good income streams for the average player

my suggestion would be to have higher profitable high sec anomalies, 30-50 million an hour minimum

newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#2 - 2013-09-05 12:47:03 UTC
:popcorn:

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#3 - 2013-09-05 12:48:06 UTC
At least I have chicken.

Thank God.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-09-05 12:51:48 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there


What would be the incentive for people to live in null-sec when high-sec gets even more profitable? Why would I want to fight over the few valuable systems in 0.0 and be constantly on the lookout for hot-droppers when I can get the same level of income in near complete safety in high-sec? It's already the case that many 0.0 players have high-sec alts for moneymaking, your proposal would mean a even more deserted null-sec.
Xia Kairui
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-09-05 12:52:45 UTC
While you have a point that having access to ISK encourages people to PvP (*) I doubt the effects will be visible. Most of the players will simply set higher goals for themselves - instead of grinding up for an Obelisk they'll save for an Anshar. At least initially. Because in the long run aAll that it will achieve is that more ISK is injected into the game and achieve exactly the same balance as it is now.

In fact that already happened. A few years ago having a billion ISK was filthy rich; now it's nothing to brag about. Frigates and cruisers still cost around the same amount though, yet there isn't more traffic in low- and null sec as far as I can tell.




(*) having more ISK to go PVP worked for me - before joining a WH corp I would have never grabbed a T2 Logi for a low sec roam without batting an eye.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#6 - 2013-09-05 13:00:04 UTC
The operational word on why and how people chooses a balance between risk and reward is risk.

"Risk" is why hisec is crowded, lowsec is empty and nullsec and wormholes are niche.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2013-09-05 13:05:23 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
it is a missleading idea that buffing nullsec and nerfing highsec will lead to more people going to null


It's not just a misleading idea, it's a non-existant idea. Highly paranoid High sec players egotistically cling to the idea that they are so individually important and special that any discussion about game balance and risk/reward must be some vield attempt to get them to move out of high sec and "play someone Else's way".

It's nonsense. No one with any sense cares about how or where you play. Folks like me who think high sec is to good aren't advocating balance in hiigh sec so YOU move there, we advocate better balance so that WE (or rather, our alts) can play competitively where we want to rather than the current situation that virtually chains us to Empire (where the people who hate null sec get to profit.....on null sec, because null sec wars are the grease that oils the EVe economy).

Quote:

, the main reason so many are in highsec is just the risk going to nullsec and the high amount of ISK lost when going there... buffing highsec will reduce the risk because of good income streams for the average player

my suggestion would be to have higher profitable high sec anomalies, 30-50 million an hour minimum

newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there


Buffing the incomes of the most coddled and least dedicated EVE players is a dumb idea. If they want more isk, it's there to be had if they want to take the risk of going to get it outside high sec, but no one is forcing them to. High sec players should accept lower rewards as their payment for CONCORD protection.

What your saying is the in-game equivalent of someone IRL saying "people on public assistance should get paid more, that way they spend more and the economy improves".....
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#8 - 2013-09-05 13:07:03 UTC
"Problem" with moving to null is in logistics of all stuff you need to do whatever you want to do there. Ships, mods, ammo - most often than not are very scarce on local markets or prices are huge in comparison to hisec. You forget to order one frikking thing and you have to wait for next time freighter run will be made. BUT here is where organized and efficient corps/alliances shine by either setting up frequent hauling runs or inhouse production.

Of course I like better your idea, I could finally retire my periodic travels outside of empire and just milk those delicious hisec anoms like a pro.

Invalid signature format

Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#9 - 2013-09-05 13:09:07 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
If they want more isk, it's there to be had if they want to take the risk of going to get it outside high sec, but no one is forcing them to.



Not really. The 5 Mill ISK an hour more doing Low Sec Exploration just isn't worth the time and trouble.

And that's just for starters.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

TheBlueMonkey
Be Nice Inc.
Prismatic Legion
#10 - 2013-09-05 13:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: TheBlueMonkey
If they buff highsec so that it's better than going to nullsec, then what point in going to null?

oh, for the fights, trust me, if someone's scared of losing a ship when they have 500mil in their wallet, they're still going to be scared of losing a ship when they have 500bil in their wallet.

There will always be another reason for those people who can't get their head around the idea of ships being a temporary asset.

A better idea would be easier access to and more NPC 0.0\NPC 0.0 stations, making it so you don't need to sov grind to get there although people would then just moan about hellcamps.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#11 - 2013-09-05 13:16:49 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:
newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there


What would be the incentive for people to live in null-sec when high-sec gets even more profitable? Why would I want to fight over the few valuable systems in 0.0 and be constantly on the lookout for hot-droppers when I can get the same level of income in near complete safety in high-sec? It's already the case that many 0.0 players have high-sec alts for moneymaking, your proposal would mean a even more deserted null-sec.


the incentive is to play sov warfare, no need to have a drastic ISK incentive, they still should have that as well, however you need to be able to fit a decent ship faster, the isk grind to build a cool ship to do PvP takes too long, it must be easier to encourage more players going to nullsec and do PvP... the game should not be so much about ISK and how it holds you back, but to fit ships and do some PvP... the ISK grind and expensive ships is just holding the game back, much more bigger and cooler fights would happen if the access to ISK is much faster
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2013-09-05 13:26:54 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
If they want more isk, it's there to be had if they want to take the risk of going to get it outside high sec, but no one is forcing them to.



Not really. The 5 Mill ISK an hour more doing Low Sec Exploration just isn't worth the time and trouble.

And that's just for starters.


I agree of course. The propblem is that CCP can't buff non-high sec space because that space allows players to use force to take resources. So people will just take the good space and farm the hell out of it.

It happened with faction warfare when those dudes locked down a swath of space and farmed the missions. It happened with null sec before the anom and titan nerfs when, it even happens with wormholes with organized wormhole alliances dominating the C56s and such.

High sec residents (who have access to infinite and basically free/respawning content and thus isk) aren't exposed to these force factors, so they tend to think that you can just buff non-high sec space and that will fix things. It jsut doesn't work that way.

The problem is how high sec works, not the entire rest of EVE space.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#13 - 2013-09-05 13:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Forever
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
If they buff highsec so that it's better than going to nullsec, then what point in going to null?

oh, for the fights, trust me, if someone's scared of losing a ship when they have 500mil in their wallet, they're still going to be scared of losing a ship when they have 500bil in their wallet.

There will always be another reason for those people who can't get their head around the idea of ships being a temporary asset.

A better idea would be easier access to and more NPC 0.0\NPC 0.0 stations, making it so you don't need to sov grind to get there although people would then just moan about hellcamps.


the biggest issue I see is the time it takes to get the ISK for a decent ship, especially for the new players, then they fall into the habbit of just being a highsec grinder because they can not go to null early on, if that early hurdle would be reduced, you have way more players who just think its normal to go to nullsec

the time it takes for a new player to have a decent ship and do some PvP is out of proportion to the risk and how fast it can be lost going to nullsec... I mostly talk about randoms and soloplayer who are not able to join fleets and organize that much because they are just random players, if you make it easier for them to go to nullsec, it would be way more exciting out there, bigger alliances would have more targets, and other solo players could go one on one more often

the incentive going to null should be not so much focused on ISK, the focus should be PvP and exciting SoV gameplay... ISK should for sure be good out there, but not the main focus of the game
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-09-05 13:32:11 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:
newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there


What would be the incentive for people to live in null-sec when high-sec gets even more profitable? Why would I want to fight over the few valuable systems in 0.0 and be constantly on the lookout for hot-droppers when I can get the same level of income in near complete safety in high-sec? It's already the case that many 0.0 players have high-sec alts for moneymaking, your proposal would mean a even more deserted null-sec.

you assume that players only go into 0.0 to have better income which is not true.

Real incentives are:
- team work
- pvp without limits
- playing with big toys (capitals, hictors, supers, et cetera)
- big fights
All of these reasons won't be hurt by easier ISKies.

On the other hand easier ISKies will allow buying and losing bigger and more expensive ships "just for fun".

On the other hand people who live in 0.0 just to carebear ISK in anomalies don't do much to improve "0.0 life". We all know about "neutral appeared in local -> POS/dock up" stories.
Other reasons are: exploration, mining, moons....

Exploration: it's main point is not ISK i guess. It's about exploring. Dunno is easier ISK will affect exploration or not.
Mining: it's already dead (according to 0.0 experts)
Moons: i guess they will live. After all with easier ISK stuff and moon mats will be more expensive so it will give more ISK to 0.0 alliances.

There is some logic in Harry's idea.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2013-09-05 13:32:33 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:


the incentive is to play sov warfare, no need to have a drastic ISK incentive.
SOV is a game played by a handful of allaince leaders.

Regardless of that, it's ironic to see someone who doesn't think people should be "forced" to leave high sec for rewards suggest something that would basically FORCE people to make isk in high sec.

Most of my pve stuff is in high sec already. It's there because no one can ever take high sec pve away, unlike null sec where you can literally get locked out.

Sure, people (looking at you isn and DIN) can slow down incursion running, gankers and organized groups can slow down or temporarily halt high sec mining and mission running, but they can't stop it. Contrast this with the fact that people can and do take your wormhole or null space from you.

The problem is high sec and it's infinite spawning themepark goodies. Fix that, fix EVE.
Ressiv
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-09-05 13:34:01 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
it is a missleading idea that buffing nullsec and nerfing highsec will lead to more people going to null, the main reason so many are in highsec is just the risk going to nullsec and the high amount of ISK lost when going there... buffing highsec will reduce the risk because of good income streams for the average player

my suggestion would be to have higher profitable high sec anomalies, 30-50 million an hour minimum

newbs and random players need better faster access to isk, especially solo players who hop in and out of the game... more money for those players will lead to more risk taking (PvP), therefore more targets going to nullsec and more fights there


My suggestion would be to make it impossible to do all but the most trivial of tasks in Hi-sec .. just force them the **** out of there ...
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#17 - 2013-09-05 13:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: embrel
Jenn aSide wrote:

What your saying is the in-game equivalent of someone IRL saying "people on public assistance should get paid more, that way they spend more and the economy improves".....


No, it's not. As the IRL money (spent on public assistance, to be precise) doesn't come out of thin air like it does in game. Which leads me to my request yesterday, to leave politics out of it especially when you try to link uncorrelated things.

on topic: of course some have to instagank the topic because it's a Harry thread even if he's not completely off in all aspects.

It's just not ISK generation in High-sec that might lead to the desired effect. That would just lead to higher prices (mo money without mo stuff leads to mo prices), but material generation.

mo material (all over the universe) could lead to lower prices. So it's not that bot-miners would profiteer from such a move for long as mineral prices would tend to drop and in their wake most else.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2013-09-05 13:40:41 UTC
embrel wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

What your saying is the in-game equivalent of someone IRL saying "people on public assistance should get paid more, that way they spend more and the economy improves".....


No, it's not. As the IRL money (spent on public assistance, to be precise) doesn't come out of thin air like it does in game. Which leads me to my request yesterday, to leave politics out of it especially when you try to link uncorrelated things.

on topic: of course some have to instagank the topic because it's a Harry thread even if he's not completely off in all aspects.

It's just not ISK generation in High-sec that might lead to the desired effect. That would just lead to higher prices (mo money without mo stuff leads to mo prices), but material generation.

mo material (all over the universe) could lead to lower prices. So it's not that bot-miners would profiteer from such a move for long as mineral prices would tend to drop and in their wake most else.


Reading is fundemental.
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#19 - 2013-09-05 13:43:51 UTC
A lot of people in hi sec are alt for players living in wh, LS and null. I had myself 3 alts doing missions while my main was in null or WH. Buffing empire won't change anything. Some players want to do PVE only and don't care about pvp. Some players hate PVE and only do PVP.

If you buff empire, you will see much more nullbears going in empire because "no afk cloakers that can kill anything while being AFK".
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2013-09-05 13:49:23 UTC
Hang on I was told 0.0 was a risk free nullbear paradise because intel channels and whatnot, far safer than highsec with evil suicide gankers at every corner. Now you're telling us people need isk from elsewhere to even entertain the idea of moving to null? Glad you agree null needs a big buff.
123Next pageLast page