Skip to main content

Rambling: Rip Out the Rails

[TL:DR: Sugar muses on the out dated defines of low security space.]

Last year I wrote a post called In Defense of Low Sec where I floated out my idea that Low Sec couldn’t be fixed and improved until it was defined better. I didn’t have any defines for it I just had a concept that trying to fix it in the middle instead of at the start would not do anything but create another random wave of imbalance. And imbalance is worse than a lack of improvement to me.
Of late, as I’ve now spent the past year and a half (with plans to stay where I am) in low sec I’ve been able to experience other people’s trials and tribulations, successes and failures in low sec space. I’ve watched various issues pop up again and again and I too have lamented at what seems to be the neglect of low sec space.
However, reading up on the threads about the new hacking game and the changes to the loot tables for Odyssey I had something click a bit. Right now, it seems that CCP has listened to our screams of protest over the wads of trash they were giving out for loot and improved the drop rates. I will go and test it tomorrow, when I am off of work. This is not about the loot rates, another post will cover that. It is about the places where people were finding the loot.
The reports for the largest gains were of course, in null sec. The gains were large enough that people were expecting them to be nerfed quickly.  The gains reported in low sec were good but not as good at the ones in null sec.
My mind put together the pieces I already know and I went, “Oh. That may be a problem.”
The worry that the loot drops in null sec are too good come from the fact that many, many areas of null sec can be farmed by its inhabitants. It is a perk of possessing Sov Null space. However, like anything a perk such as that can easily be focused on in such as a way as to throw things into imbalance.
The assumption is that the loot drops in low sec will not be as good as the loot drops in null sec because it is low sec and not null sec.
And I realized, that a lot of the reason Low Sec is not properly defined is because Eve is sitting on the decaying rails of a theme park concept.
Eve is a Sandbox! We scream it from the Heavens. We hit CCP across the head with it. We parade ourselves across the internet chanting this concept. However, when Eve was first developed its structure, like the structure of so many things was based upon other concepts and expanded beyond that. For a long, long time the progression of High Sec to Low Sec to Null Sec made sense. Wormholes were added and they became the 4th space and the most dangerous space when it came to pre-created game play.
Eve does not exist upon its bounds of created content. The health of its Sandbox is its lack of linear content for the bulk of the player base. The players have created a world where a new player can go anywhere and be anywhere with anyone at any point. The game play mechanics have often supported it with roles for small ships that are valuable at low skill levels. If the concept has evolved to one where potential profit is wrapped around the risks taken then the archaic rails rotting underneath the massive sandbox that has developed above it need to be dug out and removed.
Low Sec is not an in between state of null sec and high sec. It was developed as such but it has not evolved as such. It is an independent area of the game based off its mechanics. It has perminant residents. Residents who do not want to ‘move on’ to null security space nor ‘stay curled up’ in high security space.
Wars are waged, ships are destroyed, the kills  per ship related numbers are high. While one can say ‘they shouldn’t expect to live on the land’ I will pick up their discarded ‘sandbox’ theme. Wormhole residents were not expected to evolve into a complex, highly skilled society. I doubt null sec was expected to become a big ring of mutual agreements and diplomacy.  Jita is also the center of the game. These things happened and grew organically and often adjustments were made, such as Jita’s system population cap.
I have spent a lot of time pondering income in low sec.  I’ve pointed out that we have resources that we cannot access. Things like high value moons. When Odyssey hits and the new moons are added I do not think the valuable moons will be owned by low sec residents for very long. I expected the null sec powers to sweep in and take anything static of value as they currently do. I have no problem with this. It is also the nature of the sandbox. I may not like it but I do not find it to be wrong or bad.
But, if our static resources are good enough to be taken by those who control vast swaths of space with their powers, powers that they need to finance, our space seems to be good enough to live in and be used. That is where my thoughts wandered when people praised null sec drop rates.
Why is low sec reined in by being better than high sec and not as good as null sec when the inherent danger of acquisition of non-static goods (missions, exploration, belt ratting) is as high or higher?
I’m not asking for officer drops. I’m not even asking for improved faction spawns. The fact that low sec is empire space, if mostly lawless and unpatrolled has meaning in the area of things such as that. I can easily accept lore for why it doesn’t happen. I’ve pointed out before that I think mission payouts and LP payouts need to be tweaked. I also, think that the drop tables need to be looked at as more than ‘middle ground between high sec and null sec’ with the exploration tables.
I also think low sec should have more than two types of DED site. I feel that we should have the low end sites as high sec does and we should also have two or three of the higher end sites. There seems to be no reason for 6/10 and 7/10s to not spawn in low security space.  I can understand, via lore, that higher end sites are out away from the edges of Empire but not the most basic of middle ground.
The cliff from high sec to low sec is a canyon, not a step for a player. The ability to regain what is lost needs to exist in the space where the loss is made. As long as missions and sites continue to be ‘not worth it for the risk’ the area will continue to hover in a confused, in between state.
 Low Sec needs to be freed from the cracking, decayed rails that once structured its basic concept. Even the ghetto has jobs.

Comments

  1. technically all of low sec has access to 6/10's although ccp in there infinite wisdom has kinda screwed over minmatar and serpentis space as there 6/10's are way awful then the rest of the races of "6/10's". As for 3/10's sansha have them in low sec and no one else from what I've seen. Basically if you want the full range of 3 through 6/10's sansha's space is really the only place to go every other low sec space is limited either to 4 though 5/10's or 4 through 6/10's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For some reason Google sent both comments to the spam folder. I pulled out one. I figured they said the same thing so I did not pull them both out. Sorry about that.

      Delete
  2. your comments are spot on. i judge the value of anything i do in eve on the basis 'will this pay for a plex?' the conclusion the exploration sites were still lacking was arrived at using that guideline. the payout has to be worth the effort. for a corp to move to and live in a low sec system it has to be able to meet its financial needs from that environment. a pvp corp needs isk to replace blown up ships. will ratting cover those expenses? will mining gas or mins cover those expenses? low sec has to be profitable to the corp thats living in it. maybe they do not have sov bills, but they do have to survive. why should the members be forced to have alts in hi sec to feed their pvp habits? the answer is they shouldn't. low sec should supply everything a corp needs to survive in it. self sufficiency is a reasonable goal/objective/expectation of any corp in low sec. atm low sec isn't quite there. ccp keeps nerfing the income you gain from low sec. whether it is the bounties on ships or the slow respawn rate of roid fields or the lousy payouts of anomalies ccp just seems to gut low sec and as a result corps wont move there as a result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You haven't mentioned the biggest reason for poor income in lowsec: other players. Mission rewards are higher in LP (it's not commensurate with the increased "risk" but it is an increase over highsec), there's not penalty on rat bounty, higher quality ore, level V missions (some of which are soloable, or at the very minimum dual boxed), somewhat better opportunity in exploration, and better ice in the few systems that have ice belts. But none of that matters when the only thing stopping you from getting those income sources is whether or not you're pointed and/or in optimal+falloff of another quite possibly hostile ship.

      Delete
    2. I, at least, feel I cover that in terms of Risk. The other players are the greatest Risk in low sec. That is why the current rewards, which are not much of a step up are not great. Level 5 missions require several people or capital ships. Level 5s are not a small step up from level 4s and people do run them and lose their stuff doing them all of the time.

      Low Sec has a very high rate of loss which is fine but my general point, at least, is that because of that constant rate of loss its residents need to be able to live sustainability off of the land.

      All of the stuff is a bit better, sure, but not much better. It doesn't dent what is needed to do those missions in terms of both ships, fits, and man power.

      Delete
  3. I agree, lowsec rewards are not much of a step up in light of the risk involved. Levels 5s however, are very lucrative (90k LP+50m or so in tags/bounties/loot) for 10-30m work.

    I've been doing L4+5s for over two years in lowsec and have not been successfully probed down once

    The point is, you're either very safe or in imminent danger of getting blown up. Exactly how safe you are depends on how well you're paying attention.

    Though the irony in "why aren't there more miners in lowsec?" Posed by the self same group of people that would likely not hesitate in attempting to blow up said miner is amusing.

    Speaking of which, I know of two "mini-coalitions" in lowsec that have essentially turned a couple systems into Amamake for anyone not on their blue list...and reap the rewards of heavily mining the belts and running missions.

    Once again the threat of other players is incredibly variable. Humans being the lazy creatures we are, upon getting taunted in local for the third time for failing to scan down an alert mission boat, are more likely to give up trying than to double down on their efforts.

    It's still not an excuse not to be dscan paranoid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's very few miners in lowsec because most miners consider paying as little attention as possible to the screen to be an accomplishment.

      In hisec that works fine because of the slim chance of being ganked, in lowsec it means certain death.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sugar’s Non-Technical Guide to Making Boosters

Welcome to my non-technical and outdated but probably still useful guide to boosters.  There have been changes to how things are built in Eve. This was the old POS code before the introduction of new structures in 2016.   This is just a walk through on my wobbling path of booster production.  It took me half a dozen different documents to figure out what I needed to do to make these mythical things.  It is what I do.  It may not be perfect but it works.

This is pirate focused industry.
This guide brought to you by Lain asking me to write it after I tried to explain it in chat.

Why make boosters? Because drugs are good.  Really they are performance enhancers and performance enhancers can give someone that extra edge in PvP.  It was also because my boys used them and when they ran low they often ran out, I could be their supplier.  They would no longer hoard their drugs due to the length of time it takes to get fresh product.. The thought of being a drug kingpin was also very appealing. …

Have you done your Eve Vegas Survey?

I did attend Eve Vegas to the shock of many. I'd already paid for it and allotted the time. It seemed that I should go.


I went to the Grand Canyon and Hoover as well. This is not the space to discuss those amazing places or my new Camera.

Eve Vegas was a bit harder for me to go to then I expected. I've detached from Eve for the most part these past months. It is very easy to be angry, frustrated, and bitter about the past that I lived on. The game, its development, and the players move on while I find myself emotionally stuck. That emotional stickiness does not need to be given to everyone else. Part of experiencing it was shielding people from it. But, as I accepted my items and stared down the poor gentleman that tried to put a wristband around my wrist, I realized that I wasn't in as good of a place as I had hoped to be.

That is where the Survey comes in. There are a few things that I could say and did say. A few of the questions made me want to say a bit more.

One was …

Your ideal roadmap

To try to be a bit more interesting then blogging yet another daily list of summit meetings, how about a question?

In the producer session, as we try to figure out how to fix and improve our communication with teams and how we figure out who should be gone to for features and changes, we discussed the road map.

We discussed what 'our' ideal roadmap would be. This breaks down into the individual roadmaps for each member of the CSM. After all, we are individiuals and we have different dreams for Eve. We have different goals and features that we want to move forward or go back to.

How close are we to what CCP is looking at and planning? We discussed their safety mesures to weigh the value of features. What will this feature do for Eve? It is not enough to have an ideal road map of things you want. Those things have to have value and that value needs to be enough to dedicate the time to the feature.

Do you have an ideal roadmap? A path for Eve to head in the next year or two once …