Empire mining, hard for the little guy to compete

[tutucox_Khamsi]

@Rocket_Hellfire

Start 10 alt accounts and bring your own Providence, 10 Skiffs and an Orca. 12 paying accounts. CCP approves. Almost like Eve Online is pay-to-win…

how about NO. lean to scam a wormhole , enter in a venture that cost nothing , pick high valuable gas , sell it

[Lis_Torin]

@Karak_Terrel

you have trouble mining in Highsec of all places and cry on the forums about it

Since mining is worst and hardest in hisec. I’m not surprised he is not having fun.

[tutucox_Khamsi]

he is in a l33t null sec alliance , Highsec pff, he is to smart for that

[Ivanka_Trumptard]

@Destiny_Corrupted

If this thread isn’t indicative that CCP needs to get rid of all resource generation from high-sec (and move those missions and incursion farms away as well), I don’t know what is

Absolutely. The majority of the players want a real solution like this.

1. remove all ore but veldspar from highsec - only for new players to learn and earn basic isk
2. remove all L3 and L4 missions from highsec
3. remove incursions and trig invasions from highsec.
4. remove all ice, ore anoms, and combat anoms from highsec

Put the RISK back in REWARD like the playerbase wants and get people to the intended part of the game low and nullsec. Problem solved. Watch your playerbase grow rapidly too.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Ivanka_Trumptard

Absolutely. The majority of the players want a real solution like this.

1. remove all ore but veldspar from highsec - only for new players to learn and earn basic isk
2. remove all L3 and L4 missions from highsec
3. remove incursions and trig invasions from highsec.
4. remove all ice, ore anoms, and combat anoms from highsec

Put the RISK back in REWARD like the playerbase wants and get people to the intended part of the game low and nullsec. Problem solved. Watch your playerbase grow rapidly too.

I would even keep various forms of PvE in high-sec, including heavy stuff like incursions, on the condition that all profits from these activities come from the form of loot. At least that way there would be some elements of risk involved (thieves, PvP escalations after someone engages a suspect, et cetera).

Also, a new CONCORD mechanic could to be introduced with regard to any PvE combat site - delayed response. CONCORD would take a while to arrive, and there would be three possibilities for the outcome:

1. Defender does nothing and waits for CONCORD to arrive, risking ship loss in the process but ensuring the aggressor dies if they survive long enough
2. Defender fights back, causing aggressor’s criminal flag to be turned into a suspect flag, and resulting in a limited engagement
3. If the aggressor wins and warps away before CONCORD arrives, they lose their criminal flag

You heard it here first.

[Mkikaden_Tiragen]

I would say if you take all the reward out of Hs, might as well take all the risk too and block ganking entirely in at least 1.0 sec (safeties locked green). I mean, at that point, 1.0 is just for learning anyway.

I would prefer a rework of the overall risk vs reward mechanics to actually properly align with sec status as a sliding scale period - across all types of activities (mission availability/rewards, NPC rat spawns, wormhole access, NPC tax rates, customs fees, asteroid density/contents, allowed structures, etc). Make 1.0 space completely safe from PvP, but virtually profitless - it’s just a place to do starter missions and learn the game.

[Jint_Hikaru]

@Nico_Christened

Seriously, why even log if I know when I fly to an ice belt a guy will soon land with a providence, 10 skiffs, and an Orca. This is someone the developers should target because it ruins gameplay for those interested in industrial activities.

Seems to me the other guy is more interested in industrial activities than you are!

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Mkikaden_Tiragen

I would say if you take all the reward out of Hs, might as well take all the risk too and block ganking entirely in at least 1.0 sec (safeties locked green). I mean, at that point, 1.0 is just for learning anyway.

I would prefer a rework of the overall risk vs reward mechanics to actually properly align with sec status as a sliding scale period - across all types of activities (mission availability/rewards, NPC rat spawns, wormhole access, NPC tax rates, customs fees, asteroid density/contents, allowed structures, etc). Make 1.0 space completely safe from PvP, but virtually profitless - it’s just a place to do starter missions and learn the game.

It could be fine to have “learning” areas, but kind of meaningless because new players aren’t getting suicide-ganked anyway. In fact, there are written rules against that already.

Also, they would have to adjust the sec rating of certain systems. Amarr, for example, isn’t exactly a “starter” zone.

[Kezrai_Charzai]

@Ivanka_Trumptard

Put the RISK back in REWARD like the playerbase wants and get people to the intended part of the game low and nullsec. Problem solved. Watch your playerbase grow rapidly too.

Actually the Blackout experiment shows that your ‘solution’ would pretty much be the key to turning EVE into a ghost town. “New tumbleweed graphics added to space! For the enjoyment of our loyal players. We really appreciate both of you!”

You improve player numbers by making the game more interesting and engaging to play. Not by removing options in some ham-handed attempt “to force them to play right”.

[Mkikaden_Tiragen]

I think there are too many 1.0 sec systems as it is - so yeah, some tweaks make sense.

But all of this should probably be split since we’re heading pretty far off topic (mechanic changes vs dealing with the actual current scenario).

@ISD Could we get a split over to Player Features and Ideas for the security status/ risk vs rewards mechanic changes discussion?

[Brun_Warbear]

@Ivanka_Trumptard

remove all ore but veldspar from highsec - only for new players to learn and earn basic isk

You know veldspar is the most valuable high sec ore right?

[Brun_Warbear]

All these arguments for rebalancing risk vs reward in highsec ignore the fact that nullsec is generally safer and much higher reward than highsec.

High sec ain’t broke, nullsec is stagnant and low risk.

Fix that.

[tutucox_Khamsi]

@Brun_Warbear

All these arguments for rebalancing risk vs reward in highsec ignore the fact that nullsec is generally safer and much higher reward than highsec.

THIS …

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Brun_Warbear

All these arguments for rebalancing risk vs reward in highsec ignore the fact that nullsec is generally safer and much higher reward than highsec.

High sec ain’t broke, nullsec is stagnant and low risk.

Fix that.

The income ceiling in null-sec is already super-high, and any kind of buffs to try to further entice carebears to get out of their shells and fly out would lead to even more “titans farming sites for 500 million ISK an hour” situations.

The true issue is that the risk/reward calculation is completely irrelevant to the average high-sec carebear, because they would always choose the option with less risk, despite how much greater the reward is. Seriously, if you present two options, 5% risk/10% reward, and 10% risk/50% reward, the average bear will always choose the former.

It’s a player problem, and the only way to address that is for the developer to force certain mechanics onto the player base, because the players themselves are fundamentally unable to arrive at the proper conclusion on their own. It’s kind of like the concept of externality in economics.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Destiny_Corrupted

It’s a player problem, and the only way to address that is for the developer to force certain mechanics onto the player base

1. I’ve seen no actual argument that this is a problem or that it needs addressing,
2. You have no evidence that this would be effective in resolving a problem that doesn’t exist anyway,
3. If you take gameplay that players enjoy away from those players you’ll probably just drive those players away,
4. The reward in highsec is so low compared to the reward in nullsec that there’s no argument that highsec players are detrimental to the health of the game or the economy,
5. High sec ain’t broke. High sec players don’t need to have their gameplay adjusted. There’s no problem here,
6. No other players owe you gameplay.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Brun_Warbear

3. If you take gameplay that players enjoy away from those players you’ll probably just drive those players away

If CCP truly subscribed to that logic, they wouldn’t have implemented many changes over the years that did exactly that. So you’re not really arguing against me here, but against CCP.

@Brun_Warbear

4. The reward in highsec is so low compared to the reward in nullsec that there’s no argument that highsec players are detrimental to the health of the game or the economy,

High-sec is full of quite-rewarding PvE activities, including incursions and level 4 missions. Is null-sec more rewarding? Yes, but there’s a premium you have to pay in risk, whether real or perceived. In any case, you are expected to pay for the privilege of null-sec income, either through getting attacked and suffering losses, or through the expenditure of time and money necessary to maintain and defend your space. When those factors are considered, the argument that high-sec is actually the more profitable of the two on average becomes valid.

The goal here is to make the risk/reward calculation have a logical progression according to tiers of space. Right now, that doesn’t really exist. It did in the past, however, during the first few years of the game. That was also when the game grew the fastest, although I am not necessarily claiming causation.

@Brun_Warbear

5. High sec ain’t broke. High sec players don’t need to have their gameplay adjusted. There’s no problem here

That’s your opinion. You’re welcome to have an opinion, and I will respect it as such.

@Brun_Warbear

6. No other players owe you gameplay.

No, but CCP does. And right now, the game is objectively imbalanced with regard to the rewards available in safe space compared to the non-safe space.

[Brun_Warbear]

@Destiny_Corrupted

If CCP truly subscribed to that logic, they wouldn’t have implemented many changes over the years that did exactly that. So you’re not really arguing against me here, but against CCP.

What gameplay has been taken out of highsec?

@Destiny_Corrupted

Yes, but there’s a premium you have to pay in risk,

Not really, as we both agreed on previously, nullsec is often safer as well as more lucrative than highsec.

@Destiny_Corrupted

the argument that high-sec is actually the more profitable of the two on average becomes valid.

Yet this isn’t demonstrated in the economic reports at all, quite the opposite. This argument is just nonsense.

@Destiny_Corrupted

The goal here is to make the risk/reward calculation have a logical progression according to tiers of space. Right now, that doesn’t really exist. It did in the past, however, during the first few years of the game.

During the first few years of the game high sec mission rewards and bounties in missions were 4 to 5 times higher than they are currently. This was nerfed really hard IIRC a little while before L5s were added. So your argument here doesn’t stand up. High sec at launch was significantly more lucrative than nullsec, and nullsec wasn’t the power block snore fest it is now that provides enough safety for Rorqual mining fleets and supercap ratting.

@Destiny_Corrupted

No, but CCP does. And right now, the game is objectively imbalanced with regard to the rewards available in safe space compared to the non-safe space.

It really isn’t.

You’re also essentially arguing that incursions and invasions are low risk. They’re low PvP risk sure, but PvP risk isn’t the only calculation here. And yet there is still PvP cost to invasions (check the kill boards).

Eve supports more than just direct PvP gameplay. Those gameplay styles are valid, and it’s absolutely fine for players to adopt an environment where the PvP risk is lower.

CCP has provided you with Gameplay. It’s not a zero sum deal. High sec players are not diminishing the gameplay available to you. Attempting to force them into activities that you deem appropriate does not mean that all these supposedly rich little high sec Care Bears are going to become available for your PvP enjoyment.

This risk vs. reward argument is such a blatant straw man, and you frame it all about how these high sec players are getting away with massive ill-gotten gains with little thought to the emergent gameplay your suggested changes may provoke.

Fix nullsec. Make less safe areas of space actually fun. The players will move to where the fun is, or they wont.

[Ivanka_Trumptard]

If they truly dont want to move L3 and L4 missions and incursions/invasions out of high sec as they should then at least remove all NPC bounties and cap the LP to 2%

this risk free highsec profiteering and farming must stop.

[Mkikaden_Tiragen]

Since when is anything in Highsec risk free?

Low risk =/= no risk, and most parts of ‘low risk’ come at high initial time/isk/skill investment to reduce risk.

Yes, a properly fit and run incursion fleet has a low risk of losing ships to the content itself, and generates insane income. But that low risk profile has a few serious weak points (logi pilot skill/attentiveness is an example) that can flip the engagement from low to high, and is incredibly expensive to get into as a new pilot. And there is always the potential for a PvP group to decide to troll incursion fleets - which, even if no ships are killed, tanks the isk/hr of the incursion fleet when they have to seek alternate sites - or hunt their ships in-transit between loci.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Nothing is ever High Sec’s fault, is it? Its the Null Boogie man ffs