Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
III ZiggyBang
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 05:51:00 -
[31]
ITT; moan , complain, whine! |
Flippington Bigboy
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 06:25:00 -
[32]
Some great well thought-out ideas here and I don't know enough about the "high-end" of the Eve enough to comment yet, but I can say with certainty that trying to force players into low-sek by whatever means is highly likely to result in them simply finding an alternative game. The central appeal of Eve for myself and many others is due to the fact that you're entirely free to go your own way, and attempting to strong-arm pve-centred players into a high-risk pvp environment is likely to lead simply to a lower overall population.
|
Tiny Zim
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 07:53:00 -
[33]
Lowsec kiddie-pirate tears FTW. Moar, please.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 08:05:00 -
[34]
lots of people who want to nerf highsec don't play in highsec at all and don't respect the play styles of other people very much. highsec activities cannot ever be replaced by those in lowsec or 0.0 for the simple reason that you can play while practically AFK and don't have to be on your toes so much.
there is the issue of ISK farmers running the highsec lv4's, but there are other ways of addressing this, and nerfing lvl 4's is a very heavy handed and crude way of getting people to lowsec that will ultimately make many people leave.
there's lots of better ways to accomplish the same goal that isn't nerfing highsec
MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO |
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 08:06:00 -
[35]
Originally by: mazzilliu lots of people who want to nerf highsec don't play in highsec at all and don't respect the play styles of other people very much. highsec activities cannot ever be replaced by those in lowsec or 0.0 for the simple reason that you can play while practically AFK and don't have to be on your toes so much.
there is the issue of ISK farmers running the highsec lv4's, but there are other ways of addressing this, and nerfing lvl 4's is a very heavy handed and crude way of getting people to lowsec that will ultimately make many people leave.
there's lots of better ways to accomplish the same goal that isn't nerfing highsec
Well, go ahead and name them
Originally by: a51 duke1406 The girls just dont understand that sunday is pvp night, not cuddle on the couch watching tv night.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 08:23:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: mazzilliu lots of people who want to nerf highsec don't play in highsec at all and don't respect the play styles of other people very much. highsec activities cannot ever be replaced by those in lowsec or 0.0 for the simple reason that you can play while practically AFK and don't have to be on your toes so much.
there is the issue of ISK farmers running the highsec lv4's, but there are other ways of addressing this, and nerfing lvl 4's is a very heavy handed and crude way of getting people to lowsec that will ultimately make many people leave.
there's lots of better ways to accomplish the same goal that isn't nerfing highsec
Well, go ahead and name them
there's threads full of ideas that are better than nerfing hisec lvl 4's
they usually fall under: raising lowsec income lowering lowsec risk giving lowsec exclusive resources, possibly removing it from 0.0 or hisec giving lowsec an exclusive feature of the game, which can only be played there(such as faction warfare)
MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO |
Ran Khanon
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 08:47:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 12/05/2010 08:49:15
Originally by: Sophia Trinidad I run missions in highsec, I would not take my multi-billion fit BS into lowsec to be ganked.
The great thing about posts like this is that they clearly outline the course EVE has took over the years in regard to 'world design', game mechanics and pve incentives; a course that reinstates the boundary between high and low sec. The game itself offers too little incentive to ever go there and with that, splitting the universe in two.
Doing empire faction missions will have you end up as an enemy to all pirate factions; firmly closing the door to any future pve career switch for all characters that start their EVE lives and keep making their isk with missioning in empire. While all this time they are improving their mission boats, ending up with stuff that is so expensive that they would never want to risk it anyway.
Spend too much time in high sec and you become a part of it. At least this goes for the huge amount of missioners that are pretty much soloing their way through the game and aren't hell-bent on pvp for whatever reason. But this doesn't mean that they wouldn't ever want to risk going there if the right buttons are pushed and this doesn't mean that they wouldn't enjoy the added sense of danger.
I think these people need a true alternative and constant reminders that they have an alternative; their agents offering important storyline missions into lowsec which can be done with cheaper, semi pvp-fit boats could be a solution. Simple tasks for your new pirate faction friends which will have you end up with enough standing and confidence to eventually consider them as at least a part-time, low sec employer.
A little excitement like that occasionally would invigorate their own gameplay experience considerably; just doing high sec missions eventually becomes very, very stale; after a hundred high sec World's Collides or AE's there is zero satisfaction of completing them anymore. Doing a much more simple mission in low sec however, would leave you with a sense of completion every time because there is always the danger of player interference. (Current lvl 4's and lvl 5's in lowsec are obviously not working for those folks: you need large or expensive pve fitted ships for that which leave you even more vulnerable).
Having multiple options is what EVE is about. As of now, missioning is a closed-off system which neatly follows and confirms the borders of low sec for too many people. It is not about FORCING people out of high sec, it is about giving them the right reasons to consider it as a viable alternative even if it's just occasionally.
Help us to make parrots game related today! |
Ayneli
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 09:04:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Bruce Carraway
If the goal is to balance residents between high, low, and 0.0 sec space, than certain minerals should only be mine from certain secs.
example:
high sec - roids only contain tritanium, pyerite, and mexallon. low sec - roids only contain isogen and nocxium. 0.0 sec - roids only contain zydrine, megacyte, and morphite.
This will force all three sec to interact with each other to get anything built, which means low sec will be be no longer worthless.
This will more likely make some nullsec alliances extend into lowsec, which will probably have a negative impact on those parts of lowsec, at least from the point of view of the current lowsec denizens. - We provide the risk CCP forgot to put into high-sec mission running. |
Millie Clode
Amarr Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 09:17:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Millie Clode on 12/05/2010 09:17:37
Originally by: mazzilliu there's threads full of ideas that are better than nerfing hisec lvl 4's
they usually fall under: raising lowsec income <- good plan
lowering lowsec risk <- terrible idea, it would spoil the whole idea of the lawless backwaters of the empire
giving lowsec exclusive resources, possibly removing it from 0.0 or hisec <- would just result in 0.0 superpowers exerting bigger influence in lowsec
giving lowsec an exclusive feature of the game, which can only be played there(such as faction warfare)<- IMO faction warfare is the lesson that should be learned before people posit further ideas to "bring more new players into lowsec". Yes there's plenty of players in FW systems but they seldom go anywhere without a huge blob as backup.
---------- Who, me? |
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 11:11:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Mynxee on 12/05/2010 11:13:32 I disagree about moving L4 missions exclusively into low sec, as it would not force high sec dwellers into low sec if they didn't want to go there. They'd just find something else to do -- either in EVE or out of it. My belief is that low sec needs a rather holistic makeover that involves the addition of content/play options that don't exist elsewhere. Doing that wouldn't require a special expansion--it could just involve implementation over time of a series of content "modules" that do interrelate to ultimately build up a unique play experience. If that content could be created by adapting existing mechanics, all the better. Also, a well-thought out incremental implementation would be far easier to do/manage than a full-blown outlaw expansion (even though I'd love the latter).
The idea of implementing a supply chain of "outlaw" goods that is ensconced in low sec and having low-sec use only for those goods came up in the Low Sec focus group I recently conducted. Some follow-on discussion also happened at the end of the ECM Balance focus group discussion. There is a lot of merit in this idea, as it could provide opportunities and benefits for a wide variety of play styles--including pirates and carebears. Besides that, it preserves the outlaw flavor of low sec which I believe is critical to giving it a unique identity and reason for existence.
Life In Low Sec |
|
nafiy gnaw
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 11:23:00 -
[41]
I dont mind nerfing lvl4 missions, especially with a certain faction named C and a certain ship named g, lvl4 missions can be ridiculously profitable (40m+ per hour?).
I do understand that a large amount of players use missioning as an income to fund their low-sec activities (As not everyone is lucky enough to join a corp that does large-ship replacement programme). But I can see quite a large number of players are certainly playing EvE thinking that doing these missions 24/7 is going to be the way of life.
My proposal was to limit the number of lvl4 missions an agent give out every day (2-3?). If someone wants more missions then he'll have to move onto a different area. This encourages the movement of players, reduces the size of the large mission hubs, and encourages different activities.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 11:49:00 -
[42]
It's not about risk vs reward really. I live in low sec, haven't really done anything in high sec in ages. I run lvl4's there, lvl5's too. The reward is well worth the risk. I haven't lost a single pve ship in low sec since I was a complete nooblet. The fact is I can run a lvl5 solo in a carrier (costs under 500M to lose) and make a very solid 100M isk a mission doing so (mostly from LP). The missions take between 5 and 60 minutes. Pretty much anyone can do this once they've got the SP to fly a carrier and a carrier is certainly not the only ship that works, I've seen a guy solo them in a ****ing afterburner fit vagabond.
The problem is the perception. Most people view low sec as a death trap and are often told there is nothing there worth doing. The result is few ever even look. Low sec has it's exclusive content in the form of lvl5's and FW but both are used by few. The problem is not the game mechanics, it's the players.
What's needed game wise is for players to be forced to low sec periodically. There needs to be tutorials on pvp stuff such as the directional scanner and gate camp running. There also needs to be some sort of advertising for the low sec only content. I would do this via storyline missions. Introduce a new series of storylines which would require you to visit a FW agent or a lvl5 agent. You wouldn't have to do anything there, just talk to him/her. The idea here is if people go there in a shuttle, see some of the riches and don't get instantly killed upon entering low sec, they might actually come back on their own.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
ViolenTUK
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 11:57:00 -
[43]
I am all for boosting low sec. Low sec space would need a boost to see players taking an interest in it. This can be done quite happily without nerfing high sec mission runners who really are not interested in running missions in low sec space. I'm sure most of you are aware that many pilots fund their 0.0 and low sec atvities from isk earnt in high sec space. If you were to nerf high sec rewards low sec population would probably decline further since to compensate for loss of revenue you would have to run missions for a longer period of time.
|
Gavjack Bunk
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 12:07:00 -
[44]
Lowsec's main problem is that there is nothing unique about it. Everything available in lowsec is available everywhere else. (Unless you want to pretend that FW is a unique form of PvP - that's fine if you like to do that)
WH has no local and environmental effects. 0.0 has well.. all that 0.0 sovereignty bobbins I don't need to explain. Hisec has CONCORD and wardecs
Lowsec has.... nothing special. Much higher exploration rewards. Much higher L5 rewards. But we're just talking ISK here. And despite all the usual chants for boosts, ISK isn't enough reward.
Lowsec needs it's own uniquely exciting dynamic that cannot be found any place else. And no I don't care what it is. WTZ removal sounds fine to me (fix instas by having wandering stargates and docks), or have CONCORD responses for persons using 0.0 only weaponry, or perhaps have gates capturable on a temporary basis and then you can do what you like with them, charge isk for passage or turn them off entirely, I don't know, or care. But that's what lowsec lacks in my pointless opinion, a successful, unique, exciting element to experience that cannot be found elsewhere in any form. Not just more isk, or carebears to gank. |
Waylan Yutani
Gallente MicroFunks
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 13:14:00 -
[45]
reward vs risk.. yesyes..
its about being scared of lowsec and being killed. A bear wont go to lowsec, evar-neva..
i see 4 year old players who have never been to lowsec ..
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 13:33:00 -
[46]
I don't understand why people can't fathom the simple fact that there is nothing ccp can do to get carebears into low sec without either:
1. Causing subscription loss through massive high sec nerfing forcing bears into low sec only to cause massive ****age. This in turn making the rest quit.
2. Significantly altering the essence of what low sec is therefore allowing bears to go there with atleast a moderate chance of surviving.
If ccp were to place level 4's in low sec or significantly nerf high sec 4's the amount of carnage that would follow would be biblical. Hell I'd be willing to wager 0.0 alliances and/or their members would be down in low sec getting a piece.
Post here if you even remotely think this wouldn't happen so I can laugh at you,
jovial
|
Gavjack Bunk
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 14:07:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Jovialmadness Post here if you even remotely think this wouldn't happen so I can laugh at you. .
If they banish L4's to lowsec, L3 Highsec becomes the mission of choice for the vast majority. If anything else were true, lowsec would now be full of bears doing L5 missions.
The only people getting hit in lowsec would be the handful of bears who try it to see how it turns out and the chancers who go there to gank them.
After that, the bears would not come, the chancers would be back on the forums calling for L3 to be banished to lowsec, and the actual lowsec players would be busy doing super secret alt-based passive income to support their endless gate camping activity. |
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 14:37:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Originally by: Jovialmadness Post here if you even remotely think this wouldn't happen so I can laugh at you. .
If they banish L4's to lowsec, L3 Highsec becomes the mission of choice for the vast majority. If anything else were true, lowsec would now be full of bears doing L5 missions.
The only people getting hit in lowsec would be the handful of bears who try it to see how it turns out and the chancers who go there to gank them.
After that, the bears would not come, the chancers would be back on the forums calling for L3 to be banished to lowsec, and the actual lowsec players would be busy doing super secret alt-based passive income to support their endless gate camping activity.
Well I wasn't really concerned about non-bear pvp as I think that is what you are referring to in part. The only way to get some sort of pvp action in low sec in my opinion is to make it a isk making zone for pirates/pvp'rs. To do this belt rats would have to be significantly improved. You do that and you will unfortunately get groups "claiming" lowsec which brings on numbers for pvp but forces ccp to act yet again. You will get more pvp though...just not with bears. |
Xilawrock Blub
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 19:32:00 -
[49]
i agree low sec is kinda empty. there are many ways of making it more apealing, ill try name a few: -make mission runners harder to scan in low sec, this way they have mora chances of keeping their salvage comparing to high sec and survive enought missions. -maybe add pod protection by concord in low sec, i remeber that poding is bear's second worst nightmare, just after loosing the pimped ship. -make research, production and trading more efficinet in low sec and so on
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |