EVE Information Portal

Aww! I think it would be awesome to have some kind of public content authoring tool too. Don't worry, we hear you.

I do not believe that low sec is a training ground. It is an area with its own unique mechanics and much of its lifestyle is quite different from null. Low sec is not a stepping ground. It is an independent area. If someone wishes to live in low sec, lovely, but it is not about training wheels. Low, like high, null, and wormholes contains players of all ages, abilities and ship types interacting in its unique environment because that is the type of game play the residents enjoy.

I run two market hubs in low sec. They are both successful and profitable. I manufacture and build in low sec. I own POCOs, my corporation owns POS. All of these things are alive and viable.

But yes, I am quite focused on a more dynamic game play where residents do not simply sit but live within an area finding what they need from system to system. I have many wishes for low sec and this is only the start. The fixes for escalations that are coming in excite me. I love the ships out in space, hunting in belts, flying and dying and living in low sec.

Most would argue that hisec is the transition zone to nullsec. Lowsec and w-space attract those with the bloodthirst gene, and L4 mission runners are drawn to the nullsec farming grounds.

Perhaps nullsec becomes more attractive to PVP players in the future?

Disagree - for those items where Meta4 is as powerful the problem is clearly with the Meta scaling. T2 is defined as being 20% better. If we take a look at say TPs Meta4 are allready 20% better in the most important stat - signature increase of whatever you choose as your unlucky victim for the electro-optical guidance system. The application stats are equal, the activation cost LOWER as is the FITTING. While lower activation cost and fitting might be understandable it would have had to come at the 16% improved performance that Meta4 should have (unless the T2 items allow for T2 charges which makes Meta4 have the T2 base allowable (see Guns)).

EDIT:
Allways left me baffling anyway. If T2 is classified Meta5 - why is T1 not simply Meta1 (1 being the first number ... you don't start counting at 0). Meta 2 3 4 would be 5 10 15% better, problem solved. Cuts item numbers massively while not taking anything from the immersion. Leaves the problem of Meta6+ weapon systems. T2 ammo is arguably the main selling point of T2 turrets and launchers ("best performance at affordable prices" if you only use vanilla or faction ammo). Make Meta6+ able to use T2 ammo? Make some of them able to use T2? Neither of which sounds really compelling. Maybe split the charge groups of Advnaced Ammunitions up into long and short range - only allow them to use that specific T2 ammo. Doesn't sound like a very sound idea either ... Scoch>Conflag for example.

CSM & Developers,

I have read some of the minutes focusing on the subject of corporation aggression changes, particularly the Team Five-O sections. I have some questions about what I am reading. In the following exchange (Text 1) it is not clear whether CCP means that the confusion associated with being shot by corp mates and Concord does not respond versus Concord does respond when they are in an NPC corp? Considering this rule has been unchanged for over a decade, is a change to this rule less confusing than consistency?

And what, if you would be kind enough to explain, is intended by the term 'old Eve'?

Another exchange (Text 2) seems to equate war declarations and low-sec/worm-hole/0.0 baiting as equivalent play styles to the complex of players and corporations that have emerged in high-sec, working together to expose theft and subversive combat opportunities? Is it your contention, in the last quote, that the aggression flagging mechanics would be too confusing to identify in-corporation aggression versus out-of-corporation aggression?

Thank you for clarification on these issues.


Regards,

S. Santorine

As to the first point. It was a nonintuitive rule from the start and the cause of confusion all along. So the change was the right thing to do and not a cause of further confusion.

Old Eve would be the original version with all its bugs and quirks. Each quirk could be argued against, using the grandfather clause of 'that is how it has always been'. The argument doesn't hold water when the newer way is better. If you disagree with this have a scribe calligraphy up your reply as that is how it should be done, none of the newfangled computer or electronics.

One the second point we were saying that there should be a difference between the flagging mechanisms but this has been solved with the changes in intercorp aggression. So I fail to see your point unless it is a convoluted way to bring back an inherently bad mechanic.

m

I didn't say complex, I said counter intuitive . . . or dumb. The ability to shoot a corp mate out of the blue in hisec with no legal repercussions was a dumb rule and lasted waaaaay too long in the game.

There was a good reason to change it, so we did.

I do not answer for all the CSM nor CCP. But if you want my answer as a CSM member (and candidate) there are connections but not equivalence. War decs and baiting are the offence, the other is the defense. Equivalence? No.

m