These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Low-sec Hopes and Changes

Author
Ijon-Tichy
Ze One Man Show
#21 - 2017-03-10 12:27:15 UTC
I would change low-sec like that:
- Get rid of sec status in low, it is just a nuisance. Gate and stations guns would get obsolete that way too.
- Ban capitals and make it a glorious battlefield for battleship fleets.
erg cz
Eye to Eye
Synergy of Steel
#22 - 2017-03-10 12:41:33 UTC
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.

Create low sec borders between all empires, so people will be forced to use it for trade.

Replace CONCORD with empire police with the same capabilities. Plus make FW four sided. Thats fits to the lore perfectly. With low sec as the place, where war between empires rages on.

Instead of get rid of unique part of EVE universe, make it more attractive. Make it bigger, so people will be able to find far away calm backwater system for PVE farm if they feel like or they can sit in choke points between factions, where they will find combat opportunities faster, than now. Cause if you know, that you will ALWAYS find the PVP ready gang on low sec Jita/Perimeter gate - you do not have to play fisherman for tens of minutes to get one combat for your whole evening. You will find combat instantly on ever camped gates between empires.

It is often hard to find PvP opportunities in semi-void null, low sec systems between empire trade hubs can be the answer. Bubbles and super caps on those gates may spoil small/medium gang warfare there, IMHO.

Right now Jita / Perimeter / Amarr are so full of trade goods, that making them low sec will gives gankers years of content.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#23 - 2017-03-10 12:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
erg cz wrote:
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.

Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

erg cz
Eye to Eye
Synergy of Steel
#24 - 2017-03-10 13:21:50 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
erg cz wrote:
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.

Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...


Ok, one step at a time. Make a lore twist and add two NEW low sec systems between empires. One system belonging to one empire and other one - to the second one. So no one can get from gallente to minmatar system via high sec only. Make FW 4 - sided and put all those new systems into FW map.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#25 - 2017-03-10 13:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
erg cz wrote:
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.

Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...


High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

In the past we've had discussions here about how unbalanced high sec incursions where. I saw it 1st hand, I'd fly with ISN (Incursion Shiney Network) can at peak cloak a good 180 isk per hour not even counting CONCORD LP flying a machariel. That same Mach struggled to make half as much per hour in null except on the very rare occasion that a null incursion was nearby, and not even then because you have to clear null incursions quickly because they become strategic headaches, no farming like in high sec.

Back then you seriously needed to rat in a super carrier to match what you could do in sub caps in high sec incursions. A Carrier back then struggled to break 150 mil per hour.

The usual high sec partisans jumped in with all manner of nonsense defenses of a measurable and noticeable flaw in the game, but one of them stuck at as more nonsense than the other:

"If the problem is low income in null sec, JUST BUFF NULL!!!, Leave Brittany high sec alone"!!!!

We tried to explain to these...people... that buffing null sec income would be bad for ALL of us, null sec income comes from anomalies that spew liquid isk and from mining ores not found in great supply in other places. Buffing null would hurt everyone everywhere else. No, the problem is high sec, fix high sec.

CCP ignored this. They changed carriers and super carriers in ways that inadvertently turned them into anomaly clearing monsters, and the buffed the Rorqual to an insane degree. That also upped the escalation chances from anomalies that had the affect of increasing the supply of dead space gear and blueprints.

In short, they took the High Seccers advice and "just buffed null".......

Very shortly the ill affects made themselves clear. Because or Rorqs, high sec mining became damn near useless. Cheap deadspace battleships filled the skies of high sec and the rest of new eden while the high sec tech1 BS builder goes broke. Some Deadpsace gear is cheaper than tech2. When high sec anom runners get escalations they are sometimes like "why bother, the loot is trash now" etc etc.


We tried hard to explain to the high sec folks that this would happen, tried to explain to them that a buff to null would hurt THEM worse than a nerf to high would. But they were too short sighted.

Don't be short sighted like them. Low sec's chief problem is that there really is no pressing financial/pecuniary reason to leave high sec once you can run lvl 4 missions or fly a beginner level incursion boat like a Maelstrom or Megathron or follow the Burner Mission Plan. That means that ONLY the more adventurous players leave, but it should be the adventurous AND the greedy. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing low sec....and null.
Hir Miriel
Elves In Space
#26 - 2017-03-10 13:53:25 UTC
I've never been much good at all the different types of sex, safe sex is the best I'm told, others say that's too boring.

All the different types makes me very confused, just build a wall and leave the undesirables on the other side.

At the moment it doesn't really matter though, playing Alpha because I don't really like paying for secs.

~ ~~ Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox. ~~ ~

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#27 - 2017-03-10 13:53:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2017-03-10 13:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.


And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.

It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just buff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.

Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up.
Keno Skir
#29 - 2017-03-10 14:00:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Supercapitals banned from low-sec (no more transit through or operating out of).
CONCORD expanded to all low-sec systems (including FW systems). Players engaged in FW are legitimate targets for each other (but cannot attack neutrals without a wardec, and vice-versa).

Then I'm fine with relocating L4 agents and Incursions to low-sec. Without CONCORD anything is a deal breaker.


So.. you want lowsec to be hisec?
Wolfgang Jannesen
Blades of Dawn
Stribog Clade
#30 - 2017-03-10 14:12:39 UTC
I want a second local channel added, for no other reason than the threads asking for the first local to be removed.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2017-03-10 14:26:14 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs.



The whole game is borderline crippled by the effort to fun ratio you get in PVP. The saving grace is that we have some people who will do the hard work for many to benefit but even then, people often would rather hell dunk than fight which mean the other side has a rather large reason no GTFO and not engage because let's face it, getting hell dunked isn't all that much fun.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2017-03-10 14:29:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
erg cz wrote:
Make Jita and Amarr low sec. Dodixie is dead market anyway, just as Hek or Rens.

Yeah... no. Maybe you can try to come up with a suggestion for improving low-sec that doesn't involve gutting high-sec...


High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

In the past we've had discussions here about how unbalanced high sec incursions where. I saw it 1st hand, I'd fly with ISN (Incursion Shiney Network) can at peak cloak a good 180 isk per hour not even counting CONCORD LP flying a machariel. That same Mach struggled to make half as much per hour in null except on the very rare occasion that a null incursion was nearby, and not even then because you have to clear null incursions quickly because they become strategic headaches, no farming like in high sec.

Back then you seriously needed to rat in a super carrier to match what you could do in sub caps in high sec incursions. A Carrier back then struggled to break 150 mil per hour.

The usual high sec partisans jumped in with all manner of nonsense defenses of a measurable and noticeable flaw in the game, but one of them stuck at as more nonsense than the other:

"If the problem is low income in null sec, JUST BUFF NULL!!!, Leave Brittany high sec alone"!!!!

We tried to explain to these...people... that buffing null sec income would be bad for ALL of us, null sec income comes from anomalies that spew liquid isk and from mining ores not found in great supply in other places. Buffing null would hurt everyone everywhere else. No, the problem is high sec, fix high sec.

CCP ignored this. They changed carriers and super carriers in ways that inadvertently turned them into anomaly clearing monsters, and the buffed the Rorqual to an insane degree. That also upped the escalation chances from anomalies that had the affect of increasing the supply of dead space gear and blueprints.

In short, they took the High Seccers advice and "just buffed null".......

Very shortly the ill affects made themselves clear. Because or Rorqs, high sec mining became damn near useless. Cheap deadspace battleships filled the skies of high sec and the rest of new eden while the high sec tech1 BS builder goes broke. Some Deadpsace gear is cheaper than tech2. When high sec anom runners get escalations they are sometimes like "why bother, the loot is trash now" etc etc.


We tried hard to explain to the high sec folks that this would happen, tried to explain to them that a buff to null would hurt THEM worse than a nerf to high would. But they were too short sighted.

Don't be short sighted like them. Low sec's chief problem is that there really is no pressing financial/pecuniary reason to leave high sec once you can run lvl 4 missions or fly a beginner level incursion boat like a Maelstrom or Megathron or follow the Burner Mission Plan. That means that ONLY the more adventurous players leave, but it should be the adventurous AND the greedy. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing low sec....and null.


My theory is that CCP went that way because they actually believe the "we will leave in droves" HS menace more than they believe the "people will move to low/null" view of others. You are arguing with facts but CCP has to deal with opinions.

Or I could be wrong...
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#33 - 2017-03-10 14:30:19 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
So, does everyone have their own idea about how to make low-sec good,
I don't know about everyone, but I do.

Get rid of it. All you need is lawful space and lawless space. No need for some in between space that makes no one happy.

Mr Epeen Cool


I disagree in the sense that I enjoy having a bubble-less PVP space that low-sec provides.

I particularly enjoy it combined with FW mechanics (regardless of if I'm flying a FW toon or not).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#34 - 2017-03-10 14:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Jenn aSide wrote:
And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.

It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.

Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up.

You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2017-03-10 14:37:03 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.

It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.

Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up.

You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.


It does not. It's literally a nerf to HS. The entire proposal is that nerfing HS would amke low/null more worthwhile because right now, the only real "offering" of low sec is PvP without CONCORD and bubbles and from what most player seem to report, that offering is not popular.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#36 - 2017-03-10 14:49:41 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
And just like that you stuck your head in the sand like every other short sighted high seccer.

It's win win for me. If they fix high sec all our experiences improve, but if they repeat the null sec mistake and "just biff low sec" I'll be ok and YOU (high seccers) will get screwed all over again like you just did when we started Rorq mining.

Shortsighted-ness doesn't make sense dude. Wake up.

You haven't explained how this benefits me as a high-sec player. So before accusing me of being shortsighted perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how moving L4s to low-sec without CONCORD benefits me. I'm not sure how Rorq mining screws me over. I don't mine, have no plans to mine - and everything has been dropping in price. This is bad how exactly...?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here - I just really don't get how your "QOL" changes are supposed to benefit me.



When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#37 - 2017-03-10 15:01:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere?

I guess I'm confused then as to what it is you're suggesting...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#38 - 2017-03-10 15:04:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
High Sec is the problem and you can't get high sec people to understand that no matter what you do. Recent history is proof.

Low-sec is the problem, and trying to deflect the issues with low-sec by blaming high-sec and null-sec is just a cop-out. As I've previously stated, I have no problems with L4s and Incursions being relocated to low-sec - provided CONCORD comes along for the ride in ALL low-sec systems. Otherwise it's totally a deal breaker.


Concord in low-sec makes low-sec into hi-sec. Essentially you wouldn't be relocating anything to low-sec, you'd be getting rid of low-sec. That's not an answer.

I'm not for moving lvl4's to low-sec. I understand the thought process, but the fact is that when people are looking for a safe play-style, they'll migrate to the next safest thing, not follow that thing that you move. I'm not going to run lvl 4's in low sec... my mission running BS's would be scanned down and killed by hunting packs with fast tackle in no time. Even fitting for PvP won't work as if I get dropped on during a large wave in a mission I'm at such a huge disadvantage death is likely anyway. The best result of a change like this would probably drive more people to "safe null" locations... well protected renter space or perhaps providence.

I AM for moving incursions exclusively to low-sec (just like FW is). It's fleet based PVE where you're grouped up anyway. I can't see a reason why they couldn't handle low-sec just fine... and making them low-sec only will probably in a small way help numbers operating in low-sec.

In the end my personal view of the various parts of eve is as follows. I know many disagree... but this is my opionion.

1. High sec is fairly low risk PVE Space with limited PVP.
2. Low sec is high risk PVE and non-blobbish/small gang PVP.
3. Null sec is Fleet/blob based PVP with set battle lines and high reward PVE based on keeping control of space (risk based on how well controlled the space is)
4. WH space is small gang PvP (weighted heavily toward stealth/ambushes due to lack of local) and high risk/high reward PVE. "Controlling space" is based simply on controlling a particular wormhole, not a region (as that doesn't really apply with the dynamic nature of wormholes)

I'm mainly against changing the nature of these spaces. I don't want Low sec to become low risk. I also don't want it to become blobbish with the PvP.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#39 - 2017-03-10 15:08:16 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
When did I say anything about moving lvl 4s anywhere?

I guess I'm confused then as to what it is you're suggesting...


Im suggesting learning from the recent past. I am not a game designer, I offer no 'plans' because that would be stupid.

And I'm pointing out how short sighted the high sec partisans on this board can be, many of whom ARE miners and builders and who did exactly get screwed when CCP did as they suggested which was to "buff null" instead of fixing the actual problem (High Sec).
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2017-03-10 15:19:25 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
love everyone saying get rid of lowsec because 0.0 is soo much more relevant, the same argument can be said about null, its pointless, pvp is tedious and far too much effort to find a fight, solo in null doesn't happen, and tidi is aids, and so is powerblocks with supercap blobs.

Isn't null-sec a separate issue entirely though? I'm not going to necessarily disagree with any of your points about null-sec, but as we're talking about low-sec what would you suggest in the way of ideas to improve it?

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
I don't do FW, and although I do travel through Lowsec the question often occurs to me: What is it for?

Faction Warfare, gate camping and ganging up on other players constantly comes to mind...


well a lot of people imply it should made into nullsec so i agree nullsec isnt relevant here and changing it to be nullsec isnt making anything better.

i wouldnt change much about lowsec tbh, i like it and if i wanted nullsec mechanics then id move to null.

Remove gateguns and station guns (they cripple solo/frigate pvp)
blocking warp stabs from plexes
if a dscan immune ship enters a plex then its not dscan immune (thats cancer)
add pirate faction warfare

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*