Because it sounds like buzzwords a lot of butthurt players use to try and pretend their stance has merit.
Do you have the numbers on how much trade goes throguh lowsec gates for CCP to even bother caring about the “economic”? Do you have the numbers to suggest that lowsec cares influence “game content jump sizes” whatever that means? Do you have ANYTHING to show about “learning ‘cliff’ problems” and lowsec gates beyond your personal feelings?
Why? Have you done a survey? Do you have reports? Even a strawpoll of a meaningful number of people who have said they would?
You say it’s “obvious” but you don’t show any proof. Instead, you use the same old repeated “eve is dying, look at the overall player count numbers!” but you don’t even explain what percent of those players are from highsec players who are too afraid to enter low sec specifically because of your idea.
Yet CCP have been whittling down the harsh aspects of the game for 10+ years now. EVE has never been less harsh, and yet subs are at an all time low.
If you can even point to one instance where making the game safer has led to more people playing EVE then we can talk. From what I’ve seen, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
You have to be much more good at this game than you are to be a target of suicide ganking. Unless you get wrapped up in something like what the HOGS did where either they were bored or just wanted to ‘terrorize’ a system and suicide ganked anyone regardless.
Oh and eve will not adapte for you.
You actually got a message when you first enter in lowsec and click the box “Do not display again” before closing it.
I indeed would be hard pressed to provide that info, from a reliable source.
I would also be put into a sort of perpetual paradox seeing as though anything I did mention, If I could find concrete evidence that proved causation from correlation, would still be wrong in the long term as the trend is undeniably a decline.
Would you agree with me that player population is affected by internal and external factors(in-game and IRL)?
There are indeed whiny, lazy, entitled “carebears” that think they deserve a risk free approach to the spoils of this game without realising that its that very danger that makes said commodity expensive, in most cases. There are also people that treat Low-Sec as panzy Sov and think that they are entitled to their gate camps, and that they shouldn’t and more so couldn’t even manage thinking about adopting a different kind of play style if the game did change. This topic can’t be discussed with any form of progress being made if everyone is just labelled into one of those two very stratified groups and then dismissed as being stupid, incompetent, psychotic, or lazy.
People have a choice of other games that they didn’t have back in 2003 other than WoW and maybe Runescape, being large competitors in a general MMO sense. That people know games as old as EVE have changed over time not just to adapt to whiners but also logical flaws and, worst case example, a player base questioning why they want to continue playing a game that either they weren’t 100% swept up by in the first place or have grown to understand certain flaws and limitations to the games experience. That Micro-transactions, however cancerous they are to game play, are something that is very attractive for most gamers. Lastly that there are differences in the IRL economic situation of players and that real life applications of opportunity cost can affect whether someone decides to continue pouring the obscene amount of time that this game requires to get ahead in.
I don’t quite frankly know in any definitive way why this game is dying, all I can do is observe the trend for now. Seriously, if someone out there came up with an “answer”, I’m sure CCP would know about it by now(however wishful that might be).
I am interested in why you think it is the opposite of me though.
Firstly, the “learning cliff” and “the brick wall” are very common terms for the learning curve in this game. Unless you’re proposing someone sit there with a cargo scanner and scan every single ship travelling in Low-Sec, then obviously no… I don’t have an in-depth economic evaluation.
When someone has a well developed understanding of the fundamental reasons for a certain behaviour (travel between star systems), they can rely on logic to predict what might happen in an environment where the reasons that said behaviour even happens in the first place have changed so as to facilitate that behaviour more so than before, one can predict in this scenario that if the chances of player ship destruction on warp in markedly decreases, then more players will be willing to enter and transit through said systems.
That could be an economic problem as it might flood Low-sec markets with normal commodities, and flood High-Sec markets with more rare commodities thus lowering the prices of said commodities in both areas. The game totally couldn’t survive that sort of change seeing as then PVPers would have to go out and seek the structures and belts that those new commuters are now using for Indy or agents or combat site running. Clearly the only way to play panzy Sov games is by desperately justifying the cheezy gate camp choke point tactics that, very rarely, incur loses on the campers side.
I can verify why those new commuters would take advantage what low sec has to offer from the above mentioned relative safety of safe gates, again with the previously used method.
You don’t need to make a strawpoll to understand that a pilot with the skills to fly a mining barge and that also owns a mining barge is probably going to mine something… same applies with combat hulls for PVP and PVE. If said miner then has access to warp into a low sec system and not get immediately deleted, yes, he might decide to warp out to a belt, and then a much more fulfilling PVP interaction can then take place.
Lastly… what in Gabens good graces is that last paragraph. You think that my un-implemented idea for a safer Low-Sec jump-in system is scaring people off from Low-sec currently…, I can’t describe how many ways that is just backwards of reality.
After looking at your killboards, I have a few suggestions for you that will likely improve your losec experience and require zero change to existing game mechanics.
Use a scout. Jumping blind into potentially hostile territory always adds risk. Even if you just park your ship at the hisec entry system and jump through in a corvette, that lets you know if the gate is camped or not.
Fit your ship properly. Skip the warp core stabilizers and go with nanofibers or inertial stabilzers so you can get into warp faster instead. WCSs become dead weight once a hostile gang becomes big enough.
Fly the right ships. You already have access to CovOps cloaks, so training into a Blockade Runner probably won’t take you long. They are amazing at avoiding gate camps.
Bonus tip: Use your directional scanner and watch local. I see a fair number of losses while mining in belts. Being mindful of your surroundings greatly adds to your survivability.
ugh… your welcome to check my in-game employment history…
I really can’t speak for everyone here (obviously), but I don’t think anyone enjoys the off-topic, annoying “carebear” references. Another attempt to stratify and polarise people into categories and discredit them. Please stop.
As this thread is now in the “Player features and ideas” section, let’s break it down some. The main complaint is that lowsec is too hard, that evil pirates ruined someone’s experience, and that therefore lowsec should be made safe through the introduction of Concord.
Lowsec is intended to be unsafe, and its residents like it that way. No-one with an ounce of concern for lowsec want Concord in it. Surely this thread should be moved to the “ridiculous ideas” section?
First off, thank you for not being immediately vile, I appreciate it.
The bonus tip is quality as heck. I have permanent places on my screen for my probe scanning window and D-scan window, so I can tell when someone is scanning down signatures while in system. I also spam the hell out of D-scan on the 360 degree 14.5 AU setting when someone else pops up in local. I usually have my chat window minimised as its pretty dead in high sec most of the time, but it is always opened up for treks into low sec. All this definitely helps once in system, but it kinda falls flat in a gate camp.
I will agree that the inertial stabs would help in align time, they also take away all ability to survive a scramble, and there is practically no Gate-Camp without scrams. The notion that warp core stabs become dead weight when the gang is large enough is more or less correct though, seeing my last kill mail (lol), inertial stabs would have also made the situation even more likely to not be in my favour. Again, because of size of gang and scrams.
I appreciate the suggestions, but they are solutions that I already know about or have been brought up before. Though you are the first to bring up Blockade Runners (HMMM), and trust me the Bustard is a sexy looking bird. The goal isn’t a pat on the back, it should be obvious that that sort of thing is easily achievable, however the Bustard helps with the tank and agility that could possibly survive the burn back to the gate, the WCS +2 like you said, becomes useless when the gang is big enough.
For the scout part, it still doesn’t make much sense, nor is it something that you could call “balanced”, seeing as the Camper is basically guaranteed that corvette kill.
