EVE General Discussion

Actually I'd suggest it be done the opposite way - make it based on PvE activity. If a system has a hell of a lot of missioning going on it, the pirates are going to have their backs constantly against the wall, unable to field convincing forces in the asteroid belts because they're spending all their time defending their deadspace assets. If a system has a hell of a lot of trading (say, Jita), local security forces will increase their presence accordingly to ensure business stays smooth and isn't interrupted by filthy pirates. A system that's heavily mined will slowly expend its high-value materials, making the potential monetary gain for the pirates less and less.

Basically, if a system has a lot of "hi-sec stuff" happening in it, its security status goes up, meaning that the quality of minerals and the payout of missions goes down. Theoretically a hi-sec system that was neglected long enough could slip into low (but not null) security, while a heavily-trafficked and well-patrolled low-sec system (like, oh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, Intaki) could one day turn into hi-sec.

You mean all those alts of nulsecc'rs who make up "New Order" and other sources of risk, right?

If Nulsec had anything to offer that was engaging, Code, New order and others like them would not exist. The members of those groups would be too busy with their mains in Nulsec to spend so much time in highsec with their alts.

Nulsec, sov, pve and just living there needs to be sorted - Then and only then will highsec become less desirable.


** I got camped into a nulsec station yesterday by a gang of 5, simply because none of the other 19 people who were in station were willing to undock and engage.
Talk about risk averse - These guys live in nulsec, scream about lack of content but stay docked when it is taunting them in local.

I think this is fundamentally untrue. Null is plenty fun enough as it is, even with fozzie sov. The kinds of people who populate the groups you mention would be in high sec regardless of anything else, because that's where their preferred content is.

The idea that people from null are in high because they are bored is pure nonsense.

Five potential killmails? Fun? Something more exciting than station spinning? The real question is what did they have to lose by engaging?

If we're lazy, what is your personal definition of the people who hit the autopilot and go AFK?

tl;dr: no

Longer answer: Hell no

Hi-sec serves a very different set of playstyles, and making hi-sec go away won't entice those players happily into nullsec. It'll just drive them into SW:G or whatever.

See your bias is clear. You're comparing the most simplest form of APing against a relatively complicated form of ganking.

Logging in jumping into a catalyst ganking a retriever then calling it a day is every bit as lazy as logging in hitting a destination and hitting AP. Neither requires anything in the way of higher thought which is every bit as lazy as the dude who is AFK in the retriever.

I've seen dozens of people using the code troll doing exactly what I said.

You're adding complexity to the ganking side of things while completely refusing to add complexity to the AP side of things.



I don't find anything at all wrong with people being lazy in game. I have no problem with gankers being lazy and preying on the laziness of others. Why bother wasting hours in null looking for a decently fair fight when you can get instant satisfaction via ganking?

Mapping out a smarter path? Not using it to AP through obvious ganker areas? Gathering intel to make that possible? I could fluff this up more if you want.

Nah, as long as there are entitled carebears acting like they should be safe in highsec, there will be people willing to shoot them to remind them what kind of game this is.

The New Order is many things, but it is fundamentally based on ideology. One such core tenet of that ideology is that risk vs. reward must be respected for Eve to function as a game. One could argue that it formed as part of a player-driven effort to restore some risk to highsec in opposition to years of continual buffs to highsec safety by CCP. Players of all sorts, including those in nullsec who look at the big picture see the damage an overly safe and lucrative highsec does to the whole game, including nullsec, by sucking players out of the other spaces. So you could say it is in their interests to increase the risks in highsec in order to build a more vibrant nullsec.

Another view is that the growth of the New Order was a more organic phenomenon, and piratical-minded players are just following the prey who were attracted by the favourable risk vs. reward on offer in highsec. It matters not - this is a debate for the scholars among us - but making nullsec more livable, and more lucrative relative to highsec will draw players, both predator and prey, reinvigorating that sector of space. This can be done by changing nullsec, but also by nerfing highsec income and/or increasing highsec risk as is the approach of the New Order.

Whatever happens the New Order wins as it always does. Either FozzieSov and the increased risk provided by the New Order produce a revitalized nullsec that ushers in a new golden age of conflict outside of highsec and Eve continues on for another 12 years, or the population continues to contract to highsec seeking the "safe" ISK available there just to become more of the "content" that has allowed CODE. to be the #1 ranked PvP alliance in recent months, at least for a while until the game completely fail cascades.

The failure of a proper risk vs. reward balance had made Eve quite sick. Thankfully, CCP seems to have finally recognized this and are implementing the changes necessary to fix things. Let's hope they are not too late.