These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post First post
Author
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#21 - 2013-09-05 13:51:31 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


Reading is fundemental.


however.

nice hairstyle btw!
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#22 - 2013-09-05 14:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
I don't think an income buff anywhere is going to get "more people into nullsec". The problem to be tackled is a lack of reasons for doing so.

Fighting in nullsec
OP is attacking the problem assuming people will spend their ISK with less care if they have much of it. While true in a sense, very few hisec players will make the actual effort to go PVP in nullsec, as there are no objectives or goals attached to such a journey apart from getting kills. Getting some random kills does not help the individual, the corp, or the alliance in a meaningfull way. It's fun for fun's sake, and while that's OK it's not something I'b be willing to put a lot of ISK / effort into.

Living in nullsec
I rarely go to nullsec, because doing so has no real point. There is no monetary incentive, I make more ISK farming security tags in lowsec, especially if travel time and ship losses are taken into account. There is no PVP incentive, as my Alliance is to small to contest anything without getting roflstomped by bigger fish. That leaves random killing and renting, which basicly comes down to paying ISK for the right to make more ISK... which is useless without a PVP incentive! I'm not an indy so the circular logic of "getting to keep the space for PVE" simply isn't good enough.

In short: people don't need more money. They need an actual reason to visit or live in nullsec. I don't want or need some ISK shovelling agreement with a landlord, that sounds like the same boring crap I deal with IRL on daily basis. We'd rather pay the iron price and keep to places where we can actually do that (lowsec, wspace). Claiming nullsec? We're not big enough, not good enough, and oddly enough completely OK with that. I have no interest in that which I cannot conquer, and that includes the entirety of nullsec by design.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2013-09-05 14:19:52 UTC
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:



OP is attacking the problem assuming people will spend their ISK with less care if they have much of it.


That is a common mistake people with "brilliant ideas" suffer from all the time. Thet seem incapable of understanding that not everyone is the same.

If everyone were the same, they'd respond the same way and you could formulate an idea based on what YOU or I would do because you could be sure of the outcome. But the reality is that people want and need different things from an experience and react in different (even seemingly irrational) ways when new things emerge.

This is why the "if you just do things like this, X will happen" people are always wrong.

CCP themselves did it with the original anomaly nerf. The believed it would give people incentive to fight over the "good systems". In reality, it gave people incentive to take their alts (or themselves if they didn't have alts) out of null sec and put them in faction warfare, wormholes or high sec to make isk, which in turn resulted in fewer targets in null sec, which in turn resulted on a re-buff of anomalies just to fix things lol.


Enduros
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-09-05 14:30:14 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:

if the risk reduces, more people jump into PvP, thats just as simple as it gets


Very inaccurate. People that pvp in null that don't belong in null alliance usually finance it with lvl 4 or incursions. These people aren't your problem. Others that live in hi-sec and just grind lvl 4s will never go to null if you make it even easier. And whose in null will come back to hi-sec since if will be much easier to earn a living.

And risk-averse people will not jump into pvp nomatter how much isk you give them. Stop trying to make people play the game like you think it should be played.

From looking at your posts all you want are easy kills. Well tough luck, nobody wants to give anyone easy kills. It's your kind that are the most annoying players. "Elite PvPers" that are looking for a gank, not a fight. And it's always the same stupid whine every time. Just stop, let it go. Please.
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#25 - 2013-09-05 14:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
Jenn aSide wrote:
That is a common mistake people with "brilliant ideas" suffer from all the time. Thet seem incapable of understanding that not everyone is the same.

Indeed, ISK is only a marginal factor. I fit + implant relatively cheap, a loss in nullsec (assuming pod death) would not be much more of a strain on my wallet or time, then a loss in lowsec. It's just that I have no fun getting my solo Hurricane hotdropped by a rich dudes Blackops BS while I could be losing it in glorious combat fighting relevant opponents on a competative level 1 jump away in lowsec! That's simply more enjoyable to me. Note that in both examples I lose and don't care about the ISK... Blink
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#26 - 2013-09-05 14:36:31 UTC
If i could have infinite ISK, I could set the world on fire. \o/
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-09-05 14:45:38 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
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


Like everything else you have ever written on these forums this is wrong. Effective PVP ships can be very cheap. The reason people don't is fear of loss. This is also the reason that people flt cloaky ships a lot and use warp core stabs on stealth bombers neither of which you are known to do OP are you.
So income is not the problem. Fear is the problem. More wealth = more expensive ships = more fear= less going to low/null.
People should move to low /null early and in frigates if they intend to go that way or else stay in high if they prefer. making high sec the best place for isk punishes those of us that wish to live in riskier enviroments for a more exciting game.
Please stop making these posts. A million people have asked you to stop and explained in great detail why you are wrong on every subject ever.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-09-05 14:59:33 UTC
Silvetica Dian wrote:
Effective PVP ships can be very cheap.

people play games to get fun. It's not a job so your choice is not always "choose the best equipment to do your task faster and more efficiently".

Example: FW atm is almost pure frigate PvP area. Is it good? Is it bad? Neither. But many people (some of them were good FCs) left FW because they want to play with bigger toys.

Bigger toys -> bigger losses.

Look at people in Dodixie doing suspect baiting. I remember one of them lost his Vindicator priced about 3+ billion. Could he fly this ship and do pvp without good ISK? Sure not.

Another example: i have like 25+ billion in wallet. Do i get any excitement from frigate pvp? Nope. I don't care about killing someone's 1-2 million ship and i don't care to lose my cheap (and effective!) ship. This is just too small to have any feelings about such win or loss. However when i kill someone's pod with implants for like 500+ million i feel really excited imagine his rage Twisted

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

embrel
BamBam Inc.
#29 - 2013-09-05 15:04:23 UTC  |  Edited by: embrel
Enduros wrote:
It's your kind that are the most annoying players. "Elite PvPers" that are looking for a gank, not a fight.


I doubt this connection regarding Harry has ever been made before in the forums.
Onictus
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#30 - 2013-09-05 15:11:07 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
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.


Harry's ideas universally suck.

...and there is NPC null all over the place, compete with level four missions and all of that.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2013-09-05 15:13:07 UTC
Silvetica Dian wrote:


Like everything else you have ever written on these forums this is wrong. Effective PVP ships can be very cheap.


Very true. a night of high sec missioing can provide a player litteralyl days or (in the case of frigates) WEEKS of pvp ships.

People don't pvp because they either don't like pvp, they like pvp but prefer pve after a hard days work (this is me, I find killing npcs relxaing lol),OR they are the kind of people who would like pvp if they could always win and no loss was possible.

CCP could implement the "free officer mods for ever kill" program and if there is any chance of losing, some people still wouldn't pvp lol.

I think it's ok that people play a pvp game but prefer to avoid ship combat pvp, AS LONG as they understand that they are trying to play counter to how the game really is. It becomes a problem when people play counter to the spirit of the game and then complains about it, like that guy who posted on here a few weeks ago about losing his ship in LOW SEC and how terrible that was because he didn't consent to pvp.....


Julius Priscus
#32 - 2013-09-05 15:16:44 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:

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




this is where I KNEW you are trolling.
Onictus
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-09-05 15:23:49 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:

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




this is where I KNEW you are trolling.



Its entirely possible that he really has no idea.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#34 - 2013-09-05 15:27:12 UTC
Xia Kairui wrote:
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.


yea inflation would be an issue over the long run, maybe they need to reduce the materials to build ships... more ships should be faster accessible to assure the people trash them
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#35 - 2013-09-05 15:30:32 UTC
Ressiv wrote:
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 ...


it would help to make the game completely playerdriven and kill all of the PvE, my ideal solution to the topic, however the outcry would be enormous, PvP in my opinion is the only future, and the access to it as well as the risk needs to be easier...
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#36 - 2013-09-05 15:32:33 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.


yea the minerals might be even a better solution, maybe a combination of both could speed up things...
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#37 - 2013-09-05 15:39:38 UTC
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:
I don't think an income buff anywhere is going to get "more people into nullsec". The problem to be tackled is a lack of reasons for doing so.

Fighting in nullsec
OP is attacking the problem assuming people will spend their ISK with less care if they have much of it. While true in a sense, very few hisec players will make the actual effort to go PVP in nullsec, as there are no objectives or goals attached to such a journey apart from getting kills. Getting some random kills does not help the individual, the corp, or the alliance in a meaningfull way. It's fun for fun's sake, and while that's OK it's not something I'b be willing to put a lot of ISK / effort into.

Living in nullsec
I rarely go to nullsec, because doing so has no real point. There is no monetary incentive, I make more ISK farming security tags in lowsec, especially if travel time and ship losses are taken into account. There is no PVP incentive, as my Alliance is to small to contest anything without getting roflstomped by bigger fish. That leaves random killing and renting, which basicly comes down to paying ISK for the right to make more ISK... which is useless without a PVP incentive! I'm not an indy so the circular logic of "getting to keep the space for PVE" simply isn't good enough.

In short: people don't need more money. They need an actual reason to visit or live in nullsec. I don't want or need some ISK shovelling agreement with a landlord, that sounds like the same boring crap I deal with IRL on daily basis. We'd rather pay the iron price and keep to places where we can actually do that (lowsec, wspace). Claiming nullsec? We're not big enough, not good enough, and oddly enough completely OK with that. I have no interest in that which I cannot conquer, and that includes the entirety of nullsec by design.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.


there are no objectives for the average eve player, however you bring in people who play the game because of PvP and just because of that, there does not need to be another reason... at the moment you do not get the FPS playerbase to the game because the hurdle to get into PvP is just way to high, you do not get the randoms in... they sure would not add much to the metagame however they would add a lot to the day to day fights and fun

making the game more accessible and easier to just go out there and shoot stuff would help, at the moment you need to spend hours to get a ship that you loose within seconds... thats a big issue for most gamers, and thats the reason PvP is not where it could be in this game
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#38 - 2013-09-05 15:41:01 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:

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




this is where I KNEW you are trolling.


blocked.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2013-09-05 15:44:45 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:


making the game more accessible and easier to just go out there and shoot stuff would help, at the moment you need to spend hours to get a ship that you loose within seconds... thats a big issue for most gamers, and thats the reason PvP is not where it could be in this game


1.75 million ship kills per year from pvp is "pvp is not where it could be"?
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#40 - 2013-09-05 15:45:06 UTC
Enduros wrote:
Harry Forever wrote:

if the risk reduces, more people jump into PvP, thats just as simple as it gets


Very inaccurate. People that pvp in null that don't belong in null alliance usually finance it with lvl 4 or incursions. These people aren't your problem. Others that live in hi-sec and just grind lvl 4s will never go to null if you make it even easier. And whose in null will come back to hi-sec since if will be much easier to earn a living.

And risk-averse people will not jump into pvp nomatter how much isk you give them. Stop trying to make people play the game like you think it should be played.

From looking at your posts all you want are easy kills. Well tough luck, nobody wants to give anyone easy kills. It's your kind that are the most annoying players. "Elite PvPers" that are looking for a gank, not a fight. And it's always the same stupid whine every time. Just stop, let it go. Please.


the time taken to get a decent ship is the issue, it must be much shorter, because you can also loose it just within seconds, thats holding back the average gamer to improve the day to day PvP... at the moment its not PvP its more cat and mouse gameplay, hide and seek