Skip to main content

Taboo Questions

Let us talk contentious things.

What about high sec? When will CCP pay attention to high sec and those that cannot spend their time in dangerous space?  This is somewhat how the day started, sparked by a question from an anonymous poster.

Speaking about high sec, in general, is one of the hardest things to do. The amount of emotion wrapped around the topic is staggering. There are people who want to stay in high sec and nothing will make them leave. There are people who want no one to stay in high sec and wish to cripple everything about it. There are people in between, but the two extremes are large and emotional in discussion.

My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log in. We want everyone to log in.

The question that I ask, and the one that I hope is heard, is what would things for high sec be? That is not said from a stance of ignorance but one of curiosity. My personal interest has delved into broad areas that sweep across the game. Value for development time is a concept I've developed on the CSM. It is a fancier way to say, "more bang for your buck," but a true one after all.

Often, when the topic of stuff for high sec starts, missions are the first topic. Refresh them. Add more of them. The basic problem in this is that this does not occupy a player. Another mission is new text and new triggers quickly accomplished. The amount of work that it takes to build them does not balance the amount of interest the players gain from them.

This goes into adding more epic arcs. A new epic arc would be very cool. Then it would be run and we're back at the start of needing more of them and more of them and more of them.

The work the PvE team has done has been about creating a more flexible AI. We've seen the start of this and now we are going to see the next step. NPCs out doing things in space and to and with each other. Then we can come interrupt. This is moving into the area of having events happening out in space that the player can go interact with. More mobile, interactive content that gives reason to move around and do things.

What is next? What is 'high sec' when it comes to development goals in the eye of the player? When people peek at the patch notes, see nothing of excitement for high sec and close them, what are they looking for?

Example: If incursions where updated to no longer be Sansha but be other types, is that development towards high sec? If it happened, what would it add to things for the name to change? If there was another incursion site or two, how long would that create satisfaction and pleasure? How quickly would boredom set in and this content would become the same as any other?

My own prospect mining idea was wrapped around spawns people had to hunt, find, scan down, and collect. A different type of mining that involved more looking and checking and less time at the lasers. The end result is the same amount of time spent but more activity for those that wanted activity.

At first, I was on the update content bandwagon to. But, I came to believe that building new and parallel activities is a better use of time. For one, we have the fact that the 'silent majority' is silent. They must like what they do. We cannot just take it because we believe it would be better. Instead, we have to ask CCP to create something new, and we have to let the silent people speak for themselves. They will migrate over to new content or they will stay and consume what they have consumed, happily, for years.

For two, we do not have unlimited development time. Everything costs. The developers are more an infinite resource. Because of decisions made over a decade ago, our current mission system is a horrific developmental time sink. This knowledge had stripped the romance out of my dreams of Eve's future. It is cold, nitty gritty knowledge that is not pretty or sexy but unfortunately true.

What would the high sec content be? I hear these calls to create it but I am told I am wrong in the ideas that I have or the what I envision. Please, what is high sec development? I have reached the point where I just don't know. People have already started announcing their intentions for CSM11. People are going to say that they stand for high sec development. I'm curious as to what they are standing for and what the long term vision of high sec staying players are.


  1. While I think you're correct that high-sec provides everything some players want - and none of what they don't want - I don't believe this is anywhere near 100% of high-sec players. Cost/value applies to everyone, not just null and lowsec players. Some of those players stay in high-sec because it's comfortable, not because it's ideal. Many, in fact. If you look at those who support causes and the satisfaction of employees at any company, the vast majority are there because it's the best of what's around, not because it's exactly what they want. The same applies in Eve.

    What's my point? That I think there are many players who are in high because they can eke out enough profit that they don't need to risk the dangers of other areas of space. We can - and should - incentivize them to diversify their experiences.

    That doesn't mean stabbing high-sec in the heart. I think it means expanding the variety of gameplay experiences in all areas of space, but requiring players to leave the safety of high-sec to make profits sufficient to quickly amass wealth.

    In other words, diversify the variety of experiences and activities for all areas of space - including high-sec, but reduce the profits available. High-sec should be a place where casuals can experience a wide range of enjoyable activities. But once their desires graduate to wanting to maximize their effiorts, they should have to assume some risk.

    tl;dr: Reward the high-sec players with experiences, not profits. Profits should require investment of time and risk.

    1. Hey there. I deleted your first comment because you look as if you double posted. It may have been a typo correction but I'm terrible at seeing those things. I hope I kept the right one!

      Also, I don't think its a 100% thing no, but it was pointed out to me the other day that I don't PvE. Which is true. I make my ISK (when I made ISK unlike the last forever when I've been in stasis) doing other things.

      In my question I'm curious to see if people will bring risk into their equations. One of the comments that created this post was from someone who doesn't have the time sink that dangerous space calls for. That, I understand. Its exhausting to always be aware. But that is a choice and why I'll spend time in high sec for less gain.

      What is quickly amassing wealth to you? We know players will spend ten hours a day in sub-optimal but safe environments. How do we balance that human nature factor?

    2. "Quickly" is relative, and each player assigns that definition for themselves. My best is getting about 6-7 bil per month running cosmic sigs with an alt in NPC space, and all that with about 2 hrs a day at the most. It's on-and-off attention, with me sitting cloaked when I'm not actively alt-tabbed to my ratter. Ironically, having little time actually keeps me there.

      Sorry about the double-post... for some reason, it does that when I try to post some times; they would have been identical.

    3. I'm sorry but as someone who actually spends time in hisec the tl;dr from your post is nerf hisec. which seems to be the stereotypical response from anyone who lives in losec or 0.0. Make the hisec pilots life hard so they will provide us with content (read targets) when they go to other losec and 0.0 (if they stay with the game...if they don't well hell they are just wimps). We've already seen nerfs to hisec industry with the addition of taxes...even if we own our POS, which just makes it harder to make a profit, and if you don't think that hisec pilots don't invest the time then you'd be for risks come up and mine in a retriever...I'll even tell you where to mine...finally don't give me stats about how getting ganked doesn't cause hisec players to leave the game...that is just lying with statistics CCP needs to look at the longer term players who have left the game cause they are tried of not being able to play the game without being harassed by extortionists.

    4. I tend to agree with you Noslen, even though I live in nullsec now. (Or maybe because I still remember my time in hisec and I find nullsec surprisingly easy sometimes.)
      Whatever, with respect to PvE, I think the things associated to NPC hauling would be interesting to study. (NB: The idea is not to remove content for hauling players, just a substitute for not-so-interesting tasks.) More generally, I guess hisec may benefit from offering a single player the opportunity to control more complex automatic processes. A kind of automation game; with other players able to interact. The same availbale in losec or nullsec - thought there it would be as much about a lottery than automation. (Multi ship control could be a thing too btw. :-)

    5. I don't read Sugar as wanting to "nerf highsec" - she is asking for ideas about what highsec residents are looking for.

      At the same time, she tells the hard truth that reworking all NPC missions is going to be a huge task, and that new content doesn't stay interesting for long. How many times have we blown up Zor, and rescued the damsel? Most players after their first month will describe NPC missions as grinding for isk.

      But if that is what highsec players and the silent majority do most, and want improved the most, they should unsilent, speak up and ask for a development focus there.

      And my goodness, 75 comments in this thread, at the time I write this one!

    6. I didn't indicate Sugar was in favour of nerfing hisec, as I was responding to Talvorian Dex's comment about "Reward the high-sec players with experiences, not profits. Profits should require investment of time and risk." sounds like a nerf to me.

    7. Noslen NosillaOctober 5, 2015 at 12:07 AM

      ".finally don't give me stats about how getting ganked doesn't cause hisec players to leave the game...that is just lying with statistics CCP needs to look at the longer term players who have left the game cause they are tried of not being able to play the game without being harassed by extortionists. "

      So true. Gankers should follow their own advice and move to low or null and experience combat. They will tell you they have been there. I can only assume they didn't do to well against ships that could fight back. Ganking is far to easy in hisec, fix this and player retention will improve.

    8. I like lowsec.
      A lot of my corp loves wormhole life and nightly PVP (I indulge them as an AFK CEO).
      And several of my past carebear corpmates will never return to EVE Online because they despise solely being seen as targets.

      For those who want to "incentivize" high sec players to leave high sec...
      GET YOUR ASS TO LOWSEC. There ARE players who don't mind the risk and who like the idea of dodging pirates and worse. Go hunt THEM (myself included). Quit whining over high sec carebears that you think would be easier to gank, and match wits with those f us who DO like that kind of situation. GROW A PAIR.

  2. The thing that made me take trips outside the comfort of highsec, where mostly group related activities. When the group that I joined moved out of highsec to avoid Code gankers when mining, I went with them. Suddenly I needed all kind of skills I never dreamed of (like remote repping, since the POS was attacked on a whim day by day). The new team dynamic made all kind of stuff happen within that group. If other groups are encouraged to think out of the box that's called highsec considered solutions or better versions of that what is offered in highsec, maybe more people will venture out on their own pace in stead of by just joining existing blocks and infrastructures in low / null / WHs. What I discovered too is that people like to live in little blue donuts. I am still confused why people want that. I prefer to be friend to the friendlies in need for our corporation / alliance goals. But from their one, all should be ok. I did not find it working that way. What is it that people want bleu donuts?

    1. Blue donuts are safety and prosperity.

    2. High Sec is relatively safe and prosperous. It's the blue donut hole.

  3. As someone who operates primarily out of High Sec, even though I venture into Low/Null/WH space, it has to do with a few things, but the majority is one thing - Time.
    I do not have the disposible time to play that I can spend any of it camped into a station, period. If it happens, that is one less day that I have an hour or so to be able to log in and do anything other than run BPOS & set up PI for the next day.
    Why on earth would I want to move somewhere, or join a group, that could mean that for a week or more at a time there would be a good chance I would not really be able to play at all, and EVE would once again become like a second job - which was part of the reason I left it for several months at a time.

    1. Station camps actually rarely, rarely happen. Plus, if you chose a low-sec alliance, they have assets in at least two stations in that system, so you're never camped in.

    2. Those are some strangely organised alliances you've got there...

      Can I join? :P (Kidding).

  4. I'm a hi-seccer. Briefly, I'm a hi-seccer because a) I don't care for the 'player created content' of null space, b) I want to play on my terms and do not want to be forced to interact with other players game-play styles.

    That being said, the content in hi-sec is stale. Missions haven't been touched in years, sec status means next to nothing and incursions are monotonous. I had hopes for the new drifter content, but I suspect it will only be interesting for a year or two as well.

    Hi-sec development should follow a few basic guidelines:

    a) Dynamic - the content should change with the storyline and the storyline should reflect the outcome of player efforts.

    b) Accessible - the content should be accessible to pilots who log on for the first time with their 400k skill point characters. Also, there should be enough content that a player doesn't have to wait a day or two for the new content to spawn.

    c) Rewarding - content should have more-or-less equal payouts. As it stands they varying payouts of the PVE content as it stands means that some of the content is favored (incursions) and some is ignored (level 1 through level 3 missions). Rewards should be balanced so that a fairly dedicated player can plex his or her account and have enough left over to replace an occasional loss.

    d) Diverse - content should created that promotes both cooperative efforts and solo efforts.

    e) Consequential - content should have both positive and negative consequences. Standings accomplish that to a degree, but have been severely nerfed in the last year or two. (I think its kind of funny that I can erect a POS in Caldari space, but risk being shot at when I visit it.)

    1. Gotta ask... what would get you into low-sec interacting with other players in an "Eve-like" way (doing things you like, but facing challenges and setbacks)?

    2. What activities in low-sec allow me to arbitrarily walk away from the computer for 10 minutes at any random point and come back and pick up things from where I left off when I come back?

    3. Station spinning, sitting in a POS, or anything cloaky.

    4. I.e: Nothing...

      Well, nothing people don't afk anyway.

      What engaging gameplay for those casual players...

    5. From Crash: "Rewards should be balanced so that a fairly dedicated player can plex his or her account and have enough left over to replace an occasional loss."

      How many hours / day or week do you think a fairly dedicated player is spending? With the plex price changing over time the rewards would have to follow, which is slightly complicated. Many of your other points are interesting but the PLEX part about reward is something I would leave out of the equation. You don't have to tie reward to isk/hour. Fun and entertainment is the currency we need in reward. For me it would be more rewarding if the company I fly security missions for can state something like “and thanks to you (and a couple of other players) we were able to secure this -any objective-”. after all I pay my monthly fee to get entertainment.

    6. My point with that statement is that the ISK rewards should be high enough that people don't walk away from the game because they don't feel like spending RL currency to renew their subscription.

      Fun/Hour is all fine and good, but if I lose a ship or can't pay my sub, Fun isn't going to go very far.

    7. Actually if you think about it for a second... EVE could do with a whole lot less people who don't feel like spending RL currency to renew their subscription

  5. I think a lot of players would be satisfied with ANY high sec content being developed at this point. No one is going to be sold on side benefits of other development as being high sec development.

    Missions are a common suggestion because outside missions high sec is a content dessert.

    I'd suggest adding a new baseline set of anomalies to high sec. Designed and balanced specifically for High sec and spawning at a steady rate in every system. Just having something to do in every system would be a major step forward.

    The same can be said for non faction war low sec, if there's not enough belts to belt rat and no mission hub there's often nothing to do there. Even if there are enough belts the 15minute spawn time leaves so much downtime that few systems in low sec can even sustain a single ratting cruiser.

    The major problem for what little content empire space has seen over the last few years is that it's balanced around being rare or difficult. The result is content that is mostly invisible to players not specialized in it.

    The game badly needs more everyday content that any player can take part in to get content unchained from missions.

    1. "I think a lot of players would be satisfied with ANY high sec content being developed at this point. No one is going to be sold on side benefits of other development as being high sec development."

      Ditto. Even new missions would be positive at this point.

    2. What of the new Burner missions? Are players that have completed those, already bored with these new missions?

      How many new missions per month would have to be added, to keep things interesting?

      I like Crash's comments about making missions Dynamic/Accessible/Diverse/Consequential.

    3. When I checked it, I calculated that a single failed Burner mission would set me back by some 20 hours of gameplay, for a reward of 0.5 hours of gameplay.

      Why should I bother?

    4. So why bother playing then? If everything is reduced to "ccp should let me fly a frigate in level 1 missions for 2 hours a day and earn enough to plex my account" then ccp will never develop enough "interesting" content for you. Hell, I'm a fw low sec player and I brought a couple pirate frigs up to high sec to try the burner missions. Lost one or two of them actually. Did I do it for profit? No, I would earn more running yet another fdu level 4.i did it because it's fun to try new things. Try experiencing something and not reduce it to hours of game play. Now I'm not advocating go lose a titan for lols, but geez, worried about losing a ship in a burner mission. ...

  6. What do I want in Eve?

    I want tread mills. I want to get going on something and make steady progress (and it slows down over time, cause it always does).

    We can start with loyalty points and standings. They are perfect for grinders.
    Make standings meaningful. Make all loyalty point stores sell useful stuff. Make combined NPC ventures loyalty stores which require me to cash in multiple types of loyalty points at once, so I gotta grind multiple standings

    Next, I want a reason to not be in an alt corp. Alt corps are the only reasonable approach right now but it is nice to be able to join in projects bigger than a single person.

    Maybe be able to build something visible (asynchronously) with some buddies.

    However, if I am going to spend 3 months building a huge sand castle, I don't want some doofus to kick it over and say that I should be grateful for the content they just created.

    Because of real life, I can't play with 100% of my attention on the game for even a couple of hours, but I still want to be able to help. Thus, incursions don't really cut it, cause you have to be engaged synchronously with other people. Doing missions solo is ok, cause I am almost never pointed, so if an interrupt happens, I can simply warp to the nearest station and pick up things after I deal with the kid (or the phone call, or whatever)

    Thus, I *don't* want my grinding success to be significantly impeded by others. i.e. I want to control my game experience (to a large degree anyway)

    1. Asynchronous building activities. Nice way of presenting it.
      Would you be happy with some kind of automation game: setting up NPC haulers moving (small) things, robots extracting things (slowly) around a structure, .... Things like this that would make you feel a little more like the immortal capsuleer?
      (Note that this description necessarily implies hidden opportunities for other immortals to disrupt your nicely built system in order to benefit from it - possibly only for disruption.)

    2. Ael,

      As a fellow asynchronous player I suggest you take a look/see at manufacturing. You have to procure raw materials, refine them, manufacture something out of them and then sell the completed items. Every step of the way there are a wonderful set of decisions about just how much you want to do and how much you want to commission other players to do via the glorious shared market. (Do I mine ore or buy it? Do I reprocess the ore or buy minerals direct? How far afield I’m I willing to go for a better deal? Ect. . .)

      In addition, working from NPC stations (and Hi-Sec is chock full of them) nothing bad happens if you step away for a few moments, or a few hours or several days. All of your work remains exactly where it was at, paused, waiting for your return. You do have to search around for products that compete with the blood on the keyboard monitor glued players but such products can be located and there’s a special pleasure uncovering and exploiting such niches knowing that even though you’re merely part timing this gig you’re whipping the ass of some time sinking player audaciously competing with casual you.

    3. AMEN!!

      I've said a few times, one of the things missing from EVE is the abbility to undertake time-extensive projects which can be completed in short cumulative strides. Specially, as pointed, without someone blowing it all to smitherens the minute RL calls you back.

      EVE is full of "5 hour tasks", but lacks "100 hour tasks doable in 1 hour batches" (and yet... that's how I built my mission running fleet. Mission by mission, gathering 1 billion ISK to buy a new ship to rinse and repeat...)

    4. One of the major points about eve is that other players can blow you to smithereens just like that. This seems to be a core belief and want from CCP and I seem to remember them saying that this aspect is not going to change. I've been working on trying to be a hauler - just having more than one character, and hauling through the places where the gankers are not. For short periods at a time it is quite funny, or fun, trying to set up the route...

    5. And yet invincible and indestructible NPCs exist where they serve a purpose.

    6. And where do they serve a purpose? And what purpose do they serve?

    7. CONCORD ships, warpgates, NPC stations... they exist and serve a purpose. They also are "built" by game magic, not players.

      Replacing them with also invincible indestructible assets with a thousand player contributors attached to them would be something.


    8. Maybe.

      But the phrases: "a thousand player contributors" and "high sec" are unfortunately mutually exclusive. :/

  7. As allways in EvE...the loudest shouters arent the majority. For me Hi Sec is casuall gameplay, I am not forced to be online every second, I come home from work, I want to be my own boss not a worker/soldier in the evening. Yes I am a solo player( yes a despised soloplayer in an F1 Monkey game), but that has nothing to doo with Hi Sec. There are 4 areas of Space so far in EvE: Null, Low, Hi and WH( All of it),so a place for every one. Why this campaign and hatred against Hi Sec players? Oh yes its easy to doo. I know EvE is about adaption, but removing Hi Sec isent adaption, its a gun to your head, a forced desision, and not a choice. In the end its Irelevant what we players say, or think. Goons have for to long CCP ears, and if they whisper it long enought it may be happening. And for many, many casual players it will be a tough call to make, and for EvE.

    1. EVE could do with 20 Thousand more players just like this guy... Casuals who drop into Hi-Sec for an hour our so a few nights a week as a way to relax... mining something, building something. or just running some missions.. in "Relative" safety. Each of them happily paying their monthly subscription.

  8. It's the never ending question. And sadly, when it comes to hisec, pretty hard to get at an answer because the masses don't tend to be very vocal and perhaps don't even know about discussions like this taking place in the first place.

    When it comes to PVE, I think there are two distinct camps: One who wants dynamic content that provides enjoyment merely from the activity itself. And then the other who doesn't really care if it is monotonous, rinse-and-repeat-type content because it's just a means to an end for them; a means of acquiring ISK/loot/LP/whatever, and they want to do it in the most efficient, repeatable way possible. The latter may want to have more diversity of content, but not at the risk that it will reduce their income at the end of the day.

    My belief is that development should be focused on the former and not the latter. There shouldn't be anything that is designed towards high-efficiency boredom, and that is what missions became a long, long time ago. Completely repetitive, with guides telling you everything you need to know about the mission from how to fit your ship, to which which ships to shoot or not shoot, to how to blitz the mission. Missions should never be this. No matter how many times that crazy Damsel needs to be rescued, what is to be expected in that mission should highly variable. The same goes for Arcs, which are just a variation on missions.

    CCP's baseline for developing hisec shouldn't be to chase anyone out of it or try and progress them towards any other part of space. The baseline should be about enjoyable content. And define "enjoyable" as strictly related to the content itself, not in relation to the rewards derived from it. PVE content shuld be fun and challenging and fun and be attractive to those seeking that kind of casual play in the world of EVE.

    Rewards do come into play, both from the standpoint of the risk/reward tradeoff, as well as being a tool for progressing players into different areas. Obviously, the more risk associated with PVE content, the higher the reward should be. But the reward can also be used as a tool for progressing players towards communal content that requires more than just a single player to complete. The scaling of rewards should be the obvious tool for progressing players into places like lowsec, wormholes or nullsec, based on the choice to do so. You want to earn more? Well these are the places to do it. If earning more than what hisec provides for isn't your goal, and you're enjoying hisec, then keep enjoying it. But that is an entirely different discussion related to the EVE economy, as are discussions about ganks and wardecs.

    At its core, hisec should have enjoyable content that a player seeking that kind of environment can keep doing forever if they so choose. That's going to include missions, arcs, incurions, mining, perhaps random encounter sites, NPC events on a more frequent basis, but if you want to grow it beyond that, we're probably going to have to include revisiting ambulation (Walking in Stations). But I wouldn't advertise that. I'd build that in some basement of CCP's black projects area. Don't hype it, don;t even discuss it. Just build some prelimary ambulation-based content and then surprise us upon delivery. Note: I know that ain't ever happening, but it should. Hisec is the place to do it.

    1. Risk vs Reward: nobody sees them the same way. Soem man's reward is some man's worst nightmare. Take mining: some people love it, despite everything and everyone.

      There si not a single way to play EVE, but CCP too often leave sonly one door open to enjoy playing it.

      "You can do what you want... but you will fail to enjoy unless you do A and B and C and D since those are the only things CCP developed properly in 2003 and they haven't finished with them yet"

    2. By reward I'm merely referring to actual tangible rewards so ISK/LP/Loot/Ore/Gas etc. Not personal reward in terms of satisfaction. Satisfaction doesn't put ISK in the game or ore on the table. I should probably include effort into the equation as well. The combination of risk and effort on one side and reward on the other. Risk and effort are obviously subjective, but at some point they need to be reasonably considered when determining potential rewards. And while all of it may be subjective from player to player, ultimately CCP decides when they determine just how much you get paid for performing a particular PVE activity. And that tool can be used to achieve incentivizing various aspects of player behavior.

      And before anyone thinks that there isn't an element of incentivizing certain player behaviors that already goes on, don't kid yourself.

  9. Don't design missions. Design a mission designer or a jobs system.

    Author a system that allows players to design missions. Someone employs the mission agents, why shouldn't it be us(storyline for why this can happen). Allow players to create the things. Just add an grading system so badly graded things are cycled out. There's issues, localization... blah blah blah. But the best can be moved from that system and rolled into the main system and fixed for those issues then. It's free design work, just give designers a couple Isk/LP whatever each time their design is ran during it's run, and one time payable bonus if it's a big enough hit to be pulled into the game proper. It's a whole lot of work one time and any upgrades CCP wants to make. After that it pays for itself.

    Or, a Jobs system. Probably easier to implement. This one I personally have use for. I want to advertise a localized job, not cluster wide. Not a contract someone has to spend hours wading through. I want a icon when you're in a station that lists X # of Jobs/Tasks available in a constellation. Something easy to see, sorta like a help wanted sign. I put up a job, players see the job and hopefully I'm paying enough they'll go do it. This is more for corp/alliance level, but it works public as well. On a public level it could just be a fetch task. On a corp or alliance level it could be a list of tasks the corp/alliance needs done. Go mine some small amount of ore job(repeatable) to keep our index up, with a reward for doing so. Go do 10 anomalies job(repeatable) to keep the index up. Go move stuff. Yeah, you can be told to do all those things in person on a corp/alliance level.. but the person telling may not be online, and there's a mental reward loop from doing tasks on a list, and seeing a completion screen. People who wouldn't normally do things will do them for that. It's the whole Gameification Buzzword thing.

    Either way, if CCP wants content, let players build the content. We got content for years. It's just a matter of being given tools to build it.

    1. Star Trek Online gave players tools to create story missions. The player base then went out and created (and continues to create) missions that far exceed the quality of the developer created missions.

      EVE currently has a world with some systems to support varied and random content, but doesn't really have any tools to CREATE that content. "Content" in EVE tends to be "let's shoot someone", and the variety lies in how you go about doing that.

      Tools! Tools are what we need. And they don't even have to be "in your face"; let the people who want to use them have access, and they don't need to bother anyone else.

  10. First, if you approach this from the angle 'how do we get players to leave high sec', then you are doing it wrong.

    If a player is willing to leave high sec, they will do so when they find a reason that suits them. Probably group related, but still, it will be something that works for that person.

    If they aren't willing to leave high sec, then they will leave the game if you successfully force them to do so.

    I was a beta tester, and played off and on for the first 7 or 8 years or so. Tried null back in the days when the first player built station happened. Spent most of my time in high sec.

    I remember the days when you could belt rat in damn near every system. When you could 'mine' with guns, melting down loot drops for minerals. I watched over the years as CCP tried (and failed) with content like COSMOS. Watched as development time when almost exclusively to any place other than high sec. Watched as fewer and fewer options were available to the high sec player.

    Well, eventually I had to face it, CCP just didn't give a damn about players like me. So, I left.

    Don't come at this problem from the 'how do we get players to want to leave high sec'. That is the wrong approach. You have to want more players in high sec. Give them a reason to stick around, give them things to do, give them MORE CONTENT in high sec.

    Then, after they have been playing a while, if they want to leave high sec, they will. More players, more retention, it will automatically lead to more players risking low/null/WH space.

    1. I don't interpret all of CCP's actions as "nerf highsec" - but they very much want to incentivize low and null. I think that gets perceived as "nerfing highsec."

      It makes complete sense to me that reward should follow increased risk. And if some say the risks in sov null are very low, its because this is supposed to be a multi-player game, they've grouped together to make it safer for their group.

      If you are not under the umbrella of a larger group, you face higher risks, which is supposed to drive #2 and #3 sized groups to compete with #1, or forge agreements that help increase their own wealth and safety.

      I do like Anon's comment that improving highsec can lead to more players in every security band; I'm not advocating a 'do nothing' approach.

  11. Thanks for all the great answers so far.

    1. Personnally, I wonder why "Nerf hisec" answers keep coming in. It seems to me this has been proven wrong already in practice (not only theoretically); but, the sure thing is that this is not a *new* idea.

    2. No, thank you for asking, Sugar. Seriously. I will try and write something constructive later.

  12. As was alluded to above by Talvorian Dex, the problem that needs to be solved is not how to push players who have no interest out of highsec, but rather how to keep players who are comfortable operating out of highsec from just doing all their resource grinding and industry in the safest space in the game. There are a large number of players, especially small groups and solo players, who will never leave highsec for any reason. Smashing them hard with a big stick will just cause them to quit the game.

    On the other hand, keeping highsec as safe and lucrative as it is asphyxiating the rest of the game. Only CCP has all the numbers, but it seems that practically everyone you talk to who operates in null (except the Imperium perhaps), and to a lesser extent lowsec/WHs, relies on a mission running or incursion alt to grind ISK in highsec. Time spent grinding in highsec is time not spent as a target and thus content in the other spaces draining them of activity, and leaving nothing of relevance to fight over.

    The solution is to completely rework the risk vs. reward balance of the game. New, casual and small group players should be able to enjoy shooting NPCs, mining and building stuff in relative safely but this never should be the most lucrative option for an established player as it is now. The safety and ease of play under the watchful eye of CONCORD is such an overwhelming bonus, the other spaces cannot compete with in the current risk vs. reward and risk vs. effort offered by modern highsec. Keep the current content, and even add more safe PvE content for the themeparkers to endlessly repeat, but it needs to pay a pittance of what doing those activities with the real risk of other players interfering with your income source. Otherwise, it will just keep tempting veterans to come back to highsec to run, and we will continue down the path to a purely consensual PvP game where everyone just grinds resources in safety in highsec, and only leave to engage in consensual PvP with others who have done the same with nothing of consequence on the line since their ISK-making operations are safely back in highsec under the protection of CONCORD.

    That game is not a sustainable one. If losses don't have meaning, and you are fighting for nothing of consequence except for perhaps a killmail, the game gets old rather quickly. It will continue down the path of stagnation with less and less player-driven content being created, until we are all bored out of the game.

    1. "[K]eeping Highsec as safe and lucrative as it is asphyxiating the rest of the game. Only CCP has all the numbers, but it seems that practically everyone you talk to who operates in null, and to a lesser extent lowsec/WHs, relies on a mission running or incursion alt to grind ISK in highsec."

      [{The mother of all} Citations Needed].

      Personally, I find it amazing that you know so much about how everyone plays. You must teach us, oh most knowledgeable one.

      At least Talvorian has the distinction of actually playing in those areas... The idea that you can support a 'PvP lifestyle' on the meagre reward of Highsec missions is great.

      But, I'll be nice. Without resorting to conjecture or anecdotes, can you advance an argument based in fact?

      Rob K.

    2. Of course I cannot provide facts. As I said, only CCP has the data on player activities and income and they are not releasing it.

      But these observations fit my experience and those of many others. Incursion alts are a thing. Further, the decline of big nullsec wars and player counts correlates with the start of the big buffs to highsec income, and nerfing of highsec risk that started around the Incursion expansion. In fact, the release of incursions coincides with the start of the decline in logged player counts and increasing stagnation in nullsec. That is not proof of anything of course, but it is consistent with my view that a too lucrative highsec is a problem.

      But please, feel free to dismiss my views as unfounded as I will dismiss your position that everything is just fine. Until CCP gives us some numbers on how and where the aggregate player base earns an income, and the historical changes of that, all we have are theories and conjecture.

    3. Well, thank you for responding politely. Too often opposing "Incursions have ruined everything" devolves into personal attacks and accusations of "Highsec Carebear-dom". I'm glad this time it hasn't.

      Now, I'll break down why I think the "Incursions/Too lucrative Highsec is/are the root of our problems" is a flawed argument.

      Generally, I find the argument particularly reductive: "Incursions caused x, y, z to wither. If we nerf Incursions, x, y, z will be fixed."
      To me, this is flawed because it boils down an absurdly complicated ecosystem into a cause and effect tree with only two steps. 'This causes this' is an appealing idea, but most of the time it just isn't true.

      Now specifically, I feel I can argue strongly against the idea that Incursions lead to a decline in the PCU. In fact, the opposite is true: Incursion as an expansion had a 60 day positive trend, but an overall decline, yes. But, the peak PCU happened not in 2010 (when Incursion released), but in 2013.

      Peak PCU:
      Incursion PCU Trends:

      Now, sadly that's the easy point to argue against. Speaking about how 'Too lucrative highsec causes null-sec stagnation' is much harder (especially if I'm trying to use provable facts), but I feel that you're wrongly citing the cause of stagnation.

      Personally, I'd place the cause as a combination of Supercapital proliferation and and EHP based Sov system (that those SCs could interact with). This lead to an inability for non-SC holders to easily contest SC-holding entites, and thus stagnation as those players were forced out of NS.

      Finally, I can't describe just how wrong , in my experience, the 'everyone and their brother has an incursion alt for isk making' argument is. In all my time in LS (which is maybe 90% of my Eve time), I have found 25-30 people who use Incursions as their primary source of income.

      In my alliance of 100-200 individuals (600 characters), I can count no more than 10 people. Now, I'm sure there are some I don't know of, but the idea that Incursion Runners are all alts 'exiled' from 'unprofitable' space doesn't tally with my experiences at all.

      So, yeah, who are these "many others"? I'd really like to know which groups aren't exploiting the space they use!

    4. I don't think that this is an either/or proposition. Also, I think the Hi Sec Vs. Null Sec misses the point of the post: What can be done to make Hi Sec more entertaining?

      I haven't seen a post yet, here or elsewhere, advocating for increased rewards. Hi Sec content is stagnant and has been for years.

      Players leaving Null for Hi Sec isn't a Hi Sec problem. And as long as I've heard that argument, you'd think that Null would be empty by now.

  13. So time to do some reverse perspective. I was for a very long time a lowsec & 0.0 pilot. Solo, without links, solo with links, small gang, 1vs1, 1vsMany I've done it all and been mildly successful at least at all of them too.

    And now when I log in it's to highsec, because it's actually more dynamic... The fuck Kaeda? LOL funny joke! No seriously it is. Spread over a number of accounts I have about 8000 kills spread over 7 years of EVE, about half of them solo the rest in fleets from 2-3 to 100+ and that shit gets old. It really does. The PvP Shakes? I haven't had those in years, I don't even get them anymore when fighting solo heavily outnumbered. But surely when you lose an expensive ship? No, not really I'll just buy a new one and if you think a 7 year vet with at least some financial acumen feels a 2 billion loss, I'm sorry to disappoint you, it in fact barely even registers. So lowsec and 0.0 to me has become a pointless grind of fights in FW plexes at anomalies I never really bought into the FW narrative or those of one of the 0.0 blocks, so to me there's no 'greater goal' just an endless sea of fights for no other purpose then to have a fight really.
    And that really just gets old one day.

    Now highsec is diffent, in highsec I wander around do carebear things and while I do carebear things I have a wanton disregard for the law, steal peoples things invade their missions, empty their mining cans run warp-able anoms being merrily flashing yellow with 100+ in local. And I never know what is going to happen next! It's the most fun I've had in EVE in ages. Sometime nothing happens at all, sometimes some unfortunate clueless person shoots at you (and dies) sometimes there's a SUDDENLY VINDICATOR with logi and you die helplessly in the clutches of a 90% web. Some days you just kill 50 MTU's and nothing else happens and it's a snooze fest. The next you fight 10 unista's who've decided they're the law here now :) But I never know when I log in, and that's great. And people will interact with you in local too! They'll shout at you, encourage you, mock you, just chat with you, ask how you just managed to kill them, lecture you on morality etc it's heaps of fun.

    When I log in to lowsec or 0.0, I know exactly what will happen I will undock roam X systems and either get a fight or not or blobbed or not and will have had that fight 100's of times before and with prolly the same people. Who will either wave at me because they have a similar pvp philosophy or tell my I'm a scrub because I don't play the way they play, it gets pretty old.

    1. view. Cu in local

    2. I like your response. You are one of the people that makes my Hi-Sec experiences more interesting.

    3. I like the cut of your jib.

      "But let me tell you a secret... some people, if you [build] them a field full of rainbows and unicorns, will complain about the humidity and horse poop." -codeForge

    4. and sometimes you get free navy apoc :D

    5. That was a lot of fun nuke :P Though it involved a lot of work for half a billion ISK if memory serves :P

  14. Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between the spaces. I would say 95% of eve is tge same wherever you live. We all have overviews, market windows, fitting experiences, we approach, warp, orbit. It is all the same be it in low, high, npcnull, sov or a wornhole. The difference mostly boils down to who owns the sov, in wildlands it is thikker tribe, in metropolis it is the republic in jita the state. Perhaps the solution lies therein.

    I would do a few things.

    1. Allow much more choice which npc corp you join. Its little difference in game mechanics but huge in terms of how you identify. Instead of defaulting to freshfoods you could pick bruttor tribe, thukker mix, boundless, intaki syndicate, an angel corporation or any of the other 100s of corps. Actual difference in game is little but the choice, the statement and the mood change is great.

    2. I would allow corporations to join npc alliances. Ye ole mission running corp could decide to join the matari republic. Perhaps this could have benefits such protection from wardecs and disadvantages like taxes or how other npcs interact with them.

    3. Make their actions somehow further or improve the npcs sov (mining for the nefantar tribe makes the tribe stronger so the sov improves.) Im not sure what that improvement is but actions should have results. Stronger npc sov could make forcfaster police response or more services in station, and of course the pride of having made the index in whatever backwater was settled stronger.

    4.reward those activities with tags or loyalty points that can be used along with isk to get nice things.

    5. Update and add to the loyalty point stores.

    6. I would probably add level 5, 6, 7 (add as needed so that there is always so mm ething greater over the horizon that can be done) missions just because 4 is too easily mastered. A more epic task feels like progress. While initiated with the usual agent they could involve epic journies and need not be simple nearby tasks.

    Its not just a high sec improvement, it improves life wherever npcs have sov, null, low and yes mostly high. All of which can use some help imo. It also promotes the central thread of eve that actions have consequences, it invites players to pick a team and further that teams strength.

  15. I'd like to see a L4.5 mission added, which like the smaller incursions would scale to the number of people in the mission, but we could get them from agents. In small corps (the ones I'm generally in) there's no stepping stone between L4's and incursions and there really needs to be.

  16. Some people in the highsec don't even have maps.

    ~ Miss Teonusude yc114

  17. Your entire premise is wrong, and simply an invitation for the various "kill high sec" propagandists to crank it up again. High sec is an economic wasteland today. Mission income has not been updated in years, and given the plex inflation in the past 2-3 years, a mission runner has about 25% of the purchasing power of what he had 3 years ago. Don't get me started on miners and high sec industrialists, who have been hit even harder.

    The dive in PCU started when high sec industry was wiped out at the behest of the cartels.

    You want to improve this game?

    Wipe out code and their ilk. Make suicide ganking an ISK losing proposition, as well as a huge time sink.
    Roll back the industry changes.
    Roll back the mining bonuses and refining bonuses for null sec.
    Make ALL security of space in the game dynamic. A system that has high activity in mining, ratting and industry goes up in sec status slowly, and a system with little activity declines.

    High sec players need help, bigtime, if CCP even plans on turning around the losses in subs.

    1. I always get a kick out of seeing someone who's enjoyment is driven primarily by malevolence. "Whanna improve my Hi-Sec play," asks Dinsdale. "Harm those people over their. Take away their preferred game play. Punish them into oblivion. That will improve my Hi-Sec play."

    2. Oh VD (I'm taking that acronym and I'm keeping it, gawddammit), why couldn't you just leave it at:
      "Mission income has not been updated in years, and given the plex inflation in the past 2-3 years, a mission runner has about 25% of the purchasing power of what he had 3 years ago".

      It raises a bunch of salient points, and you don't disguise them by looking a little crazy.

      I have to ask a question though. Trit mining is far more profitable than it used to be. Would you have that rolled back also? (The multiboxing change).

    3. Let's not forget about the removal of drone alloys, which was an even bigger boon to hisec miners.

      And PLEX. When will people realize its not a gift to players or some form of subscription welfare. It's a RMT tool first, last and always. Users of PLEX are just a vehicle for creating demand. They don't care who those players are, nor should they. As long as people using RM are buying them instead of going to gold sites, that's all they care about. Not evey activity in the game is going to allow for being able to Play to Pay. I really do think the introduction of PLEX was one of the worst things to every happen to the game. Especially PLEX that started off cheap and gave players the idea that PLEXing their accounts would forever be a thing for them.

    4. CCP considers that they helped miners, by buffing the EHP of ships like the Procurer. You trade some mining efficiency for greater protection. The ban on input automation has also helped miners.

      The mission loot nerfs which removed meta 0 drops that many players recycled for minerals, helped miners to a smaller degree, by taking away from mission runners.

      I agree that Lvl 4 mission pay is poor, solo players are left in the dust by group players in Incursion fleets.

      Bring back the occasional level 5 in highsec? Make them a limited, optional escalation from some level 4's.

    5. I really like the idea of dynamic Hi Sec. It bleeds over to low-sec content (FW) and creates a tangible goal. Besides, Amarr space is too big. Dynamic Hi-Sec would allow players to become a part of the story.

    6. So Dinsdale is a fully paid up member of Code!

  18. Some thoughts from DireNecessity:

    Unless there’s a gaggle of untapped players itching to be dirt poor peasant capsuleers (and I’m aware of no such group), every Eve career, wherever you undertake it, should provide a reasonably posh space life. We’re bloody Empyreans after all.

    The whole idea of balancing areas primarily around risk vs ISK reward is terribly confused from the get go. On the consumption side getting away from such thinking is precisely what tiercide was all about. It used to be that a Rifter was sorta like a Slasher only better and more expensive. CCP abandoned such approach long ago. These days Slashers are good at some things while Rifters are good at other things and the game is better for it. We shouldn’t approach different areas of space with pre-tiercide thinking just like we no longer approach ship balancing with pre-tiercide thinking. Lowsec isn’t sorta like Hisec only a little riskier and a little more lucrative. Nullsec isn’t sorta like Lowsec only a little riskier and a little more lucrative and WH isn’t sorta like Nullsec with yet another step up the riskier and more lucrative tier ladder. No, just like modern Slashers and Rifters, each area of space provides unique types of game play best undertaken in that space.

    Wormholes are comparatively blind and brutal places with exclusive Tech 3 resources.

    Nullsec alone provides intricate sov play where you and yours can publically plant a flag. Cleverly, CCP as begun connecting Nullsec PvEing with sov.
    Lowsec is a wonderful hybrid mixture with a touch of law and order around gates and stations but no similar law and order away from those islands of civilization. Lowec is the only place for robust militia work.

    Highsec is all about navigating top to bottom law and order. Be a law abiding citizen and wherever you roam in Hisec the space police have your back. Mind your PDQs, refrain from loot piñataing and you can nearly always up and step away from the screen making Hisec’s a great place for casual play. At the same time, if criminality appeals (see Kaeda above), Hisec can be a great place for glued to the screen, must pay close attention play as well but keep in mind that this is still all about navigating the law.

    Arguing that Hisec needs an ISK nerf or an ISK buff or much of anything ISK related is soooo pretiericide. We’ve really got to step away from such thinking. If you’re in Nullsec for the ISK rather than the joys of sov you’re sorta missing out on the unique pleasures Nullsec can provide.

    For the life of I can’t figure out why so many players peer enviously at other players’ space yards and their supposed greener grass. If you want to do what’s over there go over there. Alternately, if you like where you’re at, you’ve really no need to pay much attention to the neighbor pointing at your well-manicured lawn whining that you cultivating such fine grass diminishes their gardening enjoyment because their envy’s not your problem, it’s theirs.

    1. You must be the first person I've seen to declare someone arguing for a highsec nerf to be outmoded :D.

      Also, "Lowsec isn’t sorta like Hisec only a little riskier and a little more lucrative. Nullsec isn’t sorta like Lowsec only a little riskier and a little more lucrative and WH isn’t sorta like Nullsec with yet another step up the riskier and more lucrative tier ladder."

      This needs to be repeated.

    2. @Rob, he's not wrong though.

      I'm in high sec because I enjoy a unique style of play that really only exists there these days (for profit piracy & hustling that isn't centered around gate-camping). Can I make better ISK elsewhere? Hell yeah, I make I pittance of what I used to make with far less effort, but I don't play EVE to maximize my isk/hour or risk/reward I play it to enjoy myself :)

    3. Its Dire. I don't think I can recall a single occasion where he's ever been wrong :).

    4. Interlocutor, "Dire, why are you walking around all wobbly like that?"

      DireNecessity, "Head’s too big – can’t hold it up."

      Interlocutor, "Let some of the hot air out."

      DireNecessity, pulling out a sidearm and shooting the Interlocutor, "What?!?! You Interlocutor’s are a dime a dozen and t'would be better if you showed a little respect. Inform your replacement."

    5. Dire, whilst I agree with your general sentiments that giving different areas of space their unique selling points, I think it's more complicated than that.

      There are many activities that can be performed in many areas of space - with the only difference being the amount of risk involved.

      The most obvious example of this would be basic manufacturing. Now assume that I choose the low-sec lifestyle and decide to live there, and want to do a little manufacturing on the side. I've got to take on a good deal more risk than somebody who is doing their manufacturing in high-sec - in that case there should be the possibility to earn additional rewards for taking on that risk. (The problem until recently was that nearly all industry could be performed perfectly in high-sec - which left no room for extra rewards until high-sec was nerfed.)

      Now when you actually get down to it, I don't believe that it should simply be that low-sec or null-sec manufacturers simply get a discount. There are high-sec islands that are more dangerous to move materials and low-sec systems one-jump from high-sec that are relatively safe for industry. I'd argue that cost/rewards for all activities should be a market based on player activity/behaviour, that way they'll naturally find their levels based on player assessment of the risk.

    6. Fade,

      Of course it’s more complicated than *just* unique play for unique areas. Interestingly, post Crius manufacturing already has a robust risk/reward (well actually work-risk/reward) dynamic – Congestion Tax. If you manufacture in a conveniently located high security location you bump into a whole lot of other manufacturers doing just the same thing generating a high Congestion Tax. At this point manufacturers have a few options 1) Tolerate it because convenience ain’t cheap, 2) Locate a quiet high security area multiple (often 10+) jumps away, 3) Be willing to hike up the risk and manufacture in (or through) more dangerous areas.

      Now I’ll be honest, post Crius I initially tried the first option but found the ‘convenience tax’ too annoying to endure so I switched to obscure safety only to discover the long commute even more agonizing leading me to finally consider lowsec where, after a little searching I located a light congestion manufacturing point but three jumps from my preferred trade hub. So these days I run like hell for the first couple of jumps and reap the risk taking low congestion benefits.

      What annoys me about folks reducing conversation to only risk/reward is suspicion that what said people are really motivated by is posturing, “I’m super elite cause I wander *dangerous* lowsec/nullsec/WH – reward me as my super elite status deserves.”

      If I were to partake in such posturing I’d raise a holy shit storm about manufactures working the long commute for congestion taxes comparable to what I’m paying in my stunningly convenient lowsec location because they’re not taking *big risk*, instead they’re just working their ass off. But I don’t raise a holy shit storm because that would be silly. If their willing to work their asses off compared to someone like me who instead prefers to take on a little risk for convenince I’m in no position to whine, “No, no, no! I’m Super Leet! You don’t get to reap posh rewards for your hard work because working hard isn’t Super Leet like my chosen game play.”

  19. I agree with some of the above posters, a job/mission editor would be more useful then just having devs build more missions.

    I see that the Devs are looking at COSMOS items, I think that's a branch that was never really developed. That may inject some life into High-Sec that's a bit different.

    Also I think that roughly equalizing the ISK/hr for the various High-Sec activities would be a good thing. I'm running missions but that's not much these days. Industry has collapsed due to over-production. PI is almost useless in High-Sec. Mining is both boring and an inefficient use of time.

    As for why a nearly 10 year vet would play in high-sec, here it is. When I first started I ran to low-sec and died a lot. I didn't have the free time to stay focused on the game long enough to run missions, I didn't have the skills to AFK cloak, and didn't have the understanding to do much else. Now that I do have the skills, I just don't have the interest. Sure I can cloak up when I go AFK now, but that's not really content for me.

    I tried 0.0 but the politics were horribly grating. I didn't have the ability to set my life and my alarm clock around someone else's vanity project. So after a time I left since I wasn't getting much out of it but insomnia.

  20. I figured I should get around to answering the questions you posed, and not disagreeing with the other posters!

    Now, a lot of the "Oh CCP hasn't developed anything recently for highsec" difficulties comes from a lack of exposure to those things which they have developed and a failure to say "specifically for highsec mission runners . New Burner missions, cool, but not for the common Mission runner, ( Carebearium Domestici :P). New Drifter Incursions, cool, but not for a mission runner. New Citadels, cool, but not for missioners...

    Like it or not, the truth is that people looking for "specific highsec development" are most likely meaning "more traditional missions". CCP has marketed the things they have created for Highsec as "not for the common man". Mission Runners are the common man. They don't want challenges, impossible tasks, glorious deaths. They want "I went here, I defeated an evil Gurista fleet, I got rewarded". (Or so I suspect.)

    It is possible to want to play Eve for relatively benign reasons, not just to have the impurities burned out of you by flame. (With apologies to Tal for abusing his motivation.)

    Personally, I'm not sure if any 'traditional missions' have been released for Eve since it was released! If they have been released, I'd be surprised. I am aware only of bug fixing measures. I honestly think that CCP should reward Missioners for their loyalty. Like as not, they've been terribly loyal, and perhaps haven't been rewarded for that.

    So, where do I stand. Short term, I think CCP should dedicate an intern, or an ISD to creating new level two or three missions, which are in dire need of variety. There are many many level 4 and 5 missions, and many level 1 missions, but few in between. I hope that L2 and L3 missions are less hard to develop (or screw up developing!).

    Long term, I'd like a new mission developing tool to be created. For an old game, Missions are pretty antiquated. Maybe take a look at World of Warcraft for challenging dungeon design? (I've never played).

    In my dreams, I'd love a 'living highsec' where missioners are a rapid reaction to mini pirate incursions. Mission agents would be dialed down in income, and anomalies would be removed (because they're so so outdated [which is not a good reason]). Chasing down Pirates would be the highest income, and would have a dynamic reward based on what you caught. Catch a battleship? 5-10 million isk. Catch a frigate, 0.5-1 million.

    Of course, making PvE like PvP will probably irritate those mission runners I just stumped for, which is why this is staying a dream. :)

    In short, 'Highseccers' want more of the same, not the new. CCP should reward them for being loyal by developing more missions, though the cost is high.

    A word on the other comments, I find it hysterical that the reactions to "I can't do other space" is "What would it take to get you to go to other space?"

    Rob K.

    1. There's a part of truth in that. CCP has been adding riskier PvE to highsec, or has moved it to other spaces, and that hasn't worked.

      More risk doesn't works. More rewards neither. I think anyone enjoys a better, improved way to experience his risk-reward. But very little people "do a Kaeda" and completely move away from their risk-reward comfort zone.

      Some people just love to shoot red crosses and get ISK. If they could build something with that mechanic, they would have another reason to play.

  21. OK, some suggestions.

    - Let players rebuild the existing indestructable structures so they bear their name as contributors to the project. "This gate/station/CONCORD ship was built by -list- these capsuleers. The faction X is thankful for their efforts".

    - New missions. CCP devs said they have better tools now, and Burner missions are coming in. Why not Level 4 missions? Or Level 2 and 3? This is what some people pay for, give it to them. (And some will have a blast "mapping" the uncharted territory of new missions, just for the sake of it).

    - Interacting with NPCs SHOULD matter. Why someone who invests in being a ganker haves a lot of fun and someone who invests in being a mission runner is ultimately wasting his time?

    - more on NPCs: since they are mindless bots and can be exploited, hand them to players. Let players use NPCs as their agents, like pawns in a chess board, with rules, risks and rewards for playing that way.

    - if missions are the-horrors-of-2003-level broken, add new missions built with a new system. CCP is not fixing POSes rather phasing them out, missions could follow too if they're that much broken.

    - in general terms, avoiding PvE should have consequences, much as avoiding PvP. Mike Azariah kidded about "peace decs" as an extreme instance of this. And that's one of the greatest truths ever spoken in EVE, why can't PvErs push their gamestyle on PvPrs?

    - PvE should react to player action. Players killing certain NPCs should risk running into trouble with those NPCs, maybe even while they're not in a mission. Then they could hire friendly NPCs to bodyguard them...

    - dyamic mission systems. some missions only are available when certain (hidden) trigger cases are met. Some may change when they've been run to many times, or too few. Also "failable" missions where a taget dies or escapes or whatever. Or maybe make agents reactive to player actions, in a indirect way. Player A crosses agent B and that makes agent C grumpy on player D.

    To summarize: what is wrong with highsec PvE is that it's old, repeating, it's dead end, is disconnected from players and is completely useless when PvErs meet unconsensual PvP.

    What's old can be renewed or expanded.
    What's repeating can be made dynamic.
    A dead end can be open to new territories with just a door.
    What's disconnected from players can be connected to player behavior.
    And "peacedecs" or other "required" PvE would teach PvPrs what "unconsensual" stands for.

    Last, a warning: removing the existing PvE is not an option. Whatever is done, must be done on top of what exists. All in all, people enjoy the current PvE, maybe not for long, but they enjoy it.

  22. "NPCs out doing things in space and to and with each other. Then we can come interrupt." If CCP is seriously exploring this direction then perhaps there is hope for PvE. I think everything should be a little more like exploration. But as an explorer, I may be biased. But missions are dull not only because they are the same thing over and over again, but because you press a button to get them, and then grind them indefinitely, usually with no interaction from other players. You might as well be playing a single player game. A really boring, terrible single player game, devoid of any sort of immersive experience due to EVE's camera setup, UI, controls, gameplay, etc. Instead we should freely travel through the solar system in search of random "missions" or "encounters" to participate in. This brings in more chance for competition from other mission runners. Since you are not in your own private little pocket that must be scanned down, but a spot in space that anyone may find. Travel through a solar system in search of these encounters would need to be more like videos I've seen of Rebel Galaxy. Rather than EVE's current restriction of warping from one object to another. A big problem with EVE is everything seems to have been designed in the laziest way possible. Get missions by pressing button. Get ore by right-clicking on a belt then sitting there watching lasers. Move around the system in straight lines from one object to another. Very uninspiring. No sense of discovery or adventure.

    Mining should require more searching about as well. More like being a prospector in the old west. Search for belts throughout a system. Then search belt for quality veins of minerals. Put some sort of dangers or anomalies in the belt. Miners can try to out-gobble each other, but would be nice for other forms of interaction between miners. Ways to sabotage each other or something. Not just select a belt location from the UI then go semi-AFK, as it is now.

    Introduce more missioner-on-missioner, miner-on-miner conflict in general. More ways for players to go yellow flashy in hisec. Or more ways to have a limited engagement sort of thing happen, when competing with missioners/miners. Pit missioners/miners against each other, make them work and fight for their rewards.

    Right now missioners/miners are either effectively playing a crappy single player game, or getting reamed by wardeccers or suicide gankers. There is very little interesting interaction with other players.

    1. Taboo question: why should a player be forced to interact to other players in order to enjoy EVE?

      Living in the same place =/= interacting with them. vºv

      And EVE, after all, is a game, not a social network.

      EVE was born in an age when social Internet didn't existed and MMOs where social networks too. But that time is gone and MMOs face the fact that playing with strangers is not necessarily the best one can do compared to interacting with people one actually cares for. Let alone when those strangers are out there to literally spoil your gaming time if they can... ;)

    2. Angry: I was actually coming here to say that I wanted more incidental grouping. Not forced grouping, and not forced conflict.

      I like dynamic content (dynamic events, dynamic difficulty in missions ... or ... dynamic security status of a system).

      I also want for some mechanics changes so that if I happen into a explore site and someone else is present, we can work together instead of racing to pop the end rat and trying to ninja the loot. Or someone happens into my mission pocket, that he can help me instead of automatically assuming he's there to grief me in some way. It'd be ok with me if there were ways we could cooperate together, both get some reward, and then go on our merry ways.

      You said living in the same place isn't the same as interacting with them. I very much agree. I live in a busy mission hub and rarely (if ever) deal directly with the inhabitants. That's weird, and probably not a good thing.

      EVE is a game about the struggle for resources, and intentionally or not, that struggle has found its way down into each and every interaction between pilots. But it's also a social game where the players build empires. The problem is that the struggle for resources can (and most of the time does) leave people jaded; these most basic interactions between strangers are forced into being a competition when they could be something else.

      I think we'd be better off if the default game mechanics offered the option of cooperation, which in the grander scale just might help the part of the game that's about building empires.

      PS: That doesn't mean I want to hug you all and cooperate you to death. It just means that I currently don't help other people for fear of "bothering" them. It means that everyone who happens across me is viewed skeptically instead of as a potential ally. I'd rather the mechanics allow people to make a wider range of decisions without being predisposed into a race/competition.

  23. To be quite honest, coming from someone who has invested a significant amount of my playing time in hi-sec, I am very indifferent about more content there, much like with the Drifter Incursions which are about to make their return. I believe there is already plenty to be engaged in as an individual. Its when you actually get the point where you want to organize with others in hi-sec that the content can become lackluster, if not downright depressing. I'm only going to come at this from the perspective of an industrialist, because there are plenty of ways to create content in hi-sec that obviously have nothing to do with industry. And just for the record, I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with "miner-bumping" and I don't think it is much of a detriment, if any, to life in hi-sec. That said, I think the more taboo questions specific to hi-sec right now are more along the lines of the following: 1. If and when CCP will ever consider expanding its EULA for player/character exploits. The prime example: using new alts to pose as a "Newbro". My game, as it were, is to help bring in newbros and returning players interested in mining and building things and get them geared specifically towards the industrial content of EvE. Separating the legit from the hoax is nearly indistinguishable. And anyone who dares to place a corp advertisement into any public forum these days knows exactly what I am talking about. It's something we live with as high-sec inhabitants, and its beyond concerning. Secondly, for nearly a decade, CCP has done little to improve upon true collaborative mechanics, whether between individuals or individuals to corporations. Still to this day, in order for corporations to share resources and facilities within the construct of the corp management system, you have to provide sensitive access to factory and research job management, for example. This is an almost nearly impossible proposition as billions can be cancelled either by accident or on purpose, which is more than enough justification for most corporations to say 'hell no!'. And who can blame them? Just fixing this kind of lousy excuse for a corp management system could in itself provide much more content for established corps to get their players more actively involved, have a sense of place and loyalty and remain long-term subscribers. If a similar system could be implemented directly between players as well, I would be overjoyed at this kind of news and might find some new motivation of my own to continue to stay with EVE and welcoming new players.

  24. Realistically, most rim dwellers wouldn't enjoy empire wars. They wouldn't like being new and not being able to formup out of a pos, or out of a lockable base. Moreover, they wouldn't see the point. Ultimately, the fix for making high sec interesting has little or nothing to do with rim dwellers.

    The space managed by empires has to make sense on the terms of those who operate there, and that includes both warmakers and the other people who ply their interests there. War decs simply aren't fun for half of the participants on the means that currently exist. They're often scarcely even fun for the individuals who pursue them. Even when both sides are committed, the aim, mechanics of, and opportunity for conflict are very strained and confined.

    Some options for making all participants focus more could involve the new structures. Instead of allow declarations against players all the time, Concord could allow declarations against structures. These could shape how flagging works, or whether or not Concord intervenes. A range of options are available, from Concord protection of structures, to just suspect flagging. Ideally, we want owners to want to defend their structures, and maybe their friends. The carrot comes in making structures have a valuable role in the economy, and be a bootstrapping mechanic on the corporate fiscal ladder.

    Other viable limitations could make war decs available on a limited regional basis. This allows for corps to force other groups from one area to another. This allows them to regroup if they wish. That's much more engaging gameplay than encouraging them to stay docked, disband or log off entirely. Keep in mind, under all other normal rules, no-one is ever truly safe anywhere in New Eden. So long as you are logged in, someone that really wants to has an ok chance of taking a shot at you.

    What CCP hasn't done yet, is come up with good mechanics for driving corporate rivalry, particularly in empire. The main mechanic should be economic. Miners should be at each other's throats just as much as industrialists are. Jita must divest. Alt logistics must feel the burn, and rim dwellers will shed more tears over both of those than any empire denizen ever will. The market presence of any player or organization should be constrained at any given station, but willingness to travel and setup at many stations (or structures) must be rewarded. That might prove to be a technical challenge, but a worthwhile one. Meta items should be inventable from tech I/II stock to make sure remote regions can be adequately stocked. That actually helps producers, especially if they want to setup shop away from hubs, as they should.

  25. Two things.


    The Risk/Reward cornerstone/mantra is fundamentally flawed from a conceptual standpoint on a pilot level. Always has been. I've never gone off into an area of space and done something for the reward ccp engineered into it, I did it because it was fun or interested me. Risk/Reward never entered my mind except when I as grinding out isk, and my thoughts were always isk payouts should be higher so I had to do it less, no matter where I was or what I was doing. I used to drink the kool aid, and back when I started drinking it it made some semblance of sense. But it isn't 2006 any more, and it definitely isn't 2003. Since then so many things have been added to the game and the culture of it has changed so much that Risk/Reward for areas of space just doesn't make sense any more. Building systems around that idea is... lunacy today. Even if it's engrained group think. All areas of space are equal, in that they're nearly completely different games. Lowsec is two different games all by itself, and possibly three. Ranking one or another above the others as a special little snowflake for rewards is disastrous and erodes moral of the players in the others.


    Highsec has no real reason for players to self organize. There's Incursions, sure. But as anyone who's sat on a wait list can tell you, it can't support that many. And Incursions really aren't the organizations that define the social and game play experience of the rest of space. There are no goals that require people to band together. I'm not sure what the things in highsec that require self organization to tackle should be, but there should be something. Possibly several somethings. A new type of mining that requires several miners to work together? A new type of PvE content that's not the size of incursions, but spawns all over the place all the time? Exploration you can't do solo? I don't know, anything. Something that incentives players, through fun, to work together.

  26. I've been playing for almost a year. I have two accounts. I have a FW toon with about 5m sp and my main lives in a C3.

    That being said I really enjoy the HS missions. I like the bits of lore and the stories I've experienced through the pve content. I plan to start running some HS missions again with my FW toon (running out of isk, I try to punch up a lot). From what I've heard the missions do start repeating quickly. So, some new missions that more directly tie into the lore of eve would be awesome. I only ran up to lvl 3 missions before J space and exploration called me away. The drifters being introduced was amazing. I spent many hours entosising Jove Observatories before moving to J space & FW. Hunting seekers and running from drifters was a blast.

    I've been war dec'd or ganked in HS by CODE, Marmite, Deadly fingertips, goons and others. I'm often surprised when people claim HS is safe. Due to my experience I'm more paranoid running around HS than low sec. I don't have anything against hanker, dec'ers or baiters. I do think war decs against alliances should cost more isk to declare. It would encourage HS corps to work together more and help cut down on perma-decs.

    I don't think HS needs an isk nerf. Many older players forget how hard isk is to make when starting out. Learning how to fit and how to run missions with the miniscule amount of isk earned in early missions is dificult.

    TL/DR Some new missions, new sigs and new anoms would be great for HS. More frequent spawns of combat sigs and anoms would be good. More content similar to seekers, drifters and Jove towers would be amazing. More expensive alliance war decs would help HS cooperation.

    1. A couple more things. :) I know some people who have played for years running missins and they honestly enjoy running missions. I also know a few people who have mined and done industry for years and they enjoy that. Both groups find their daily activities relaxing and choose Eve as their way to unwind after a hard day. Any changes to HS should take this (mostly) silent group into account. If new types of missions or mining are introduced the old missions and mining styles should still remain. If we disregard curent mining and mission game play we risk losing a large group of loyal players.

  27. For all the years playing eve, high sec always was and is the foundation for me. The core and hearth of the civilized universe. Some times I live in 0.0 or do some minor WH activity but in general I enjoy the quiet non forced interaction. I tried the PVP alliances stuff but having someone else dictating what your duty is when you are online simply isn't fun to me. So High sec is the place for stability and things to last; that hopefully stays this way. The day where players can destroy npc stations in high sec would be the death to the charm of this space.

    In short:
    - less forced PvP achieved with wardecs limited to constellations
    - forget risk vs reward; we need fun and entertainment
    - highsec activities should include hints to low/0.0/WH stuff like moon minerals and reverse engineering
    - in addition to current missions add dynamic PVE with a responsive world and NPC contacting you based on your (non mission) actions at a random frequency
    - increase mission rewards for team play rewarding those who play with friends

    An idea I think high sec would profit from is to end the random shot war declaration habit currently usual. Once you get the wardec you can be shot anywhere and thanks to neutral alts of the war decers they scramble/bump you before you can have a chance to see the threat. Limit Wardecs to a constellation (and a region for a huge amount of isk) to give it a more focused purpose. Those not willing to fight have options to avoid pvp without not logging in or leaving their group.

    Risk vs. reward is a flawed design concept. Entertainment and Fun is the reason people pay for, not for filling there pixel wallet. And no one is alleged to earn his playtime through playing. If rewards from fun and entertainment are more diverse to poke interest in other areas we get curious players tipping their toes in new game aspects. Examples are loot you can reverse engineer for Meta 2-4 module bpcs, getting moon minerals from mining or mission reward. Many will stay and enjoy what they have and that's good. Because that's exactly what high sec stands for IMO, the save harbour where most of my stuff is safe. But some ponder to anokis for more reverse engineering and others place a POS in low to try reaction.

    A responsive world less scripted and more responsive to player actions. Help a random convoy in an ambush and get a message from an agent a few days later about the attackers headquarters. Or support the attackers and get a contract from the pirates. Another time you are tackled in an ambush and friendly NPC you helped before come along and bail you out. Maybe even small dialogues with predefined answers. “Hey thanks for the help” or “Oh fuck off I had all under control'”

    Flying mission in a group should yield more reward than just split through members. If there are three pilots solving the problem the reward is say 40% higher. Encouraging players to team up and have fun together. They may happen to find the idea of little roam through low an interesting one.

    To all those arguing eve is about PVP: yes it is. And every single LP the lone wolf earns will some day end up as an item in the market competing with other players stuff. His activity devalues YOUR lp earnings from the same corp as it increases the supply. That dude is engaging you without an encounter with weapons. But if he enjoys the game and stays you may see him from time to time travelling the same space lanes you fly. Miners don't shoot each other but they compete for the same resources, adding (again) signatures to probe down for more lucrative mining would heat up competition and provide engaging points for like minded players.

    1. "Risk vs. reward is a flawed design concept."

      How interesting would a casino be, where, no matter what you gamble on, or the result, you get back 99% of your stake every time?

    2. Fade,

      Eve online isn't a casino and even casinos consider a lot more than mere risk/reward. See my more thorough response to your point in my thread above.

    3. It is a flawed design concept at a pilot level. None of us do what we do for the isk reward the game gives us for doing it. We do it because we enjoy it. So long as everything else stays the mostly same, higher or lower rewards from CCP isn't going to make us stop doing it or make us start doing it.

      Now, on a corporation and alliance level. Risk vs Reward is a different ballgame. They've a different set of needs and wants. Organizations are responsible for the fun everyone inside it is happening and have different concerns. They can't just go off and blow the budget on some poorly conceived idea that may result in fun, while all the pilots within are personally able to. Corporations need maximum return on fun for their pilots, with just the right amount of risk to keep the type of pilots they've recruited happy, and a suitable income stream to afford the bills the gameplay they've chosen requires... whatever that may be. They have to work in a complex Risk vs Reward world.

      The pilots in the corp just need to have fun, and have enough Isk to replace a few ships or obtain personal goals. Which is cheap in time expenditures now days. On a good day I pull in about 100million nearly passively, usually closer to 70. And as a pilot, I can easily live on that. Even as a PvP pilot. For personal special projects I can pump out a around a billion a day if need be, my best was closer to two, but it's soul sucking so I avoid it at all costs.

      Risk vs Reward never enters my thought process, ever. And hasn't for years. I go do whatever it is I want to do, whenever I want to do it. The only reason I'd ever worry about Risk vs Reward again is if I was suddenly responsible for the enjoyment of the game for others. But I'm not, so I don't, so there are no ****s given about whatever reward CCP gives me for whatever it is I do.

    4. Fade, Risk vs Reward is a loan-term from the Stock Market. Investing in Blue Chip provides a safe but minimal return. Invest in a mineral exploration venture and potentially no return. The prime key behind "nerf high-sec" lies the argument that high-sec is "safe", so it should have minimal return/income.

  28. The issue of high-sec starts with the tutorial. Whilst I admit I have not seen within the last twelve months, I doubt it has changed much since. The hand-off after the tutorials is to direct player to the Sisters of Eve story arc. So after completing a series of PvE - you get given more. There needs to be a mentor or coach system in place, because there is no way that a string of AI or scripted content will cover the variety of player interaction. It would have to be volunteers of the highest calibre, having the success of the game foremost as their goal. How many times have any of heard "I started missions and mining then burnt out". Because they got belt feed into those activities at their game start is why.


      It's still a work in progress and I haven't looked at it since April. But the old tutorial you're talking about, while still there, isn't the one players are led into any more. Hasn't been for about 6 months.

  29. I would like to see missions that could only be completed by several pilots, a local recruitment area in constellations and/or the ability to register with an agent your interested in doing a multi-mission. The agent would then alert you when there was sufficient players available online to begin said mission. Long missions split into doable chunks (this has been mentioned several times now and is a great idea).

  30. I would like to raise the spectre of some nullsec game mechanics that currently drive players into highsec - specifically alliance executor mechanics and POS permissions and blue lists. A lot of null players may know about these interactions, but I bet a lot of highsec players don't, especially the executor mechanics. Why would someone who PVPs out in null do almost everything else in highsec? POSes in null get a fuel savings benefit if the owning corp is a member of the alliance that claims the space, which sounds awesome. But really POSes are actually COSes - Corporation Owned Starbases, individual players need to be granted rights by the corp they are in to place and use them. As I'm sure most people know, those particular rights are very tightly controlled as they would allow a single player access to ALL POSes owned by the corp, and create massive incentive for theft - so nobody does that. The alternative is to setup a holding corp and use that corp to control the POSes. All nullsec alliances have such corps they use to control POSes for moon mining and staging, etc. Great, as a member of a nullsec alliance I should be able to get my holding corp in easily, right? Nope. Alliance executor mechanics now conspire to hold you back. Every corp in an alliance gets a vote to switch the alliance executor corporation to another (see: Brave coup). Alliance executors work around this mechanic by creating additional holding corps that the current executor fully controls and always makes sure they have N+1 corps they have full control over in the alliance, (usually) rendering the mechanic moot. That means that an alliance needs to create a new corp and new toon for every other corp they invite into the alliance. This greatly discourages alliances from simply adding corps to their books, and hence prevents POSes from being dropped by most players in null. I could drop a POS without the benefit, but it will appear to be neutral to my alliance and most likely get shot up. My alliance could add my holding corp to their blue list, but this is a lot of hassle, a potential entry point for spais, and nobody really likes having a ton of blues they need to maintain. Add to this the hassle of keeping blue lists for out-of-corp haulers and JF pilots, and you've essentially forced industry (and the players who love it) out of nullsec. What's the solution? I think we'll see a big one with the new structures - I hope CCP fixes the permissions problems that have plagued POSes for so long and allows more granular control for arbitrary groups of individual players. I also think executor mechanics should be executed. Other than creating massive drama, they are useless.

  31. I just thought I'd chime in with an opinion/anecdote.

    I tried EVE 10 years ago and never left high sec. I got bored within a month and left, coming back out of curiosity for spurts lasting a couple of days every so often.

    Then last year, I gave it another shot. Brand new account, joined a nullsec corp straight off the bat. Completely different experience.


    I spend time in high sec as my "downtime". Doing PVE, shipspinning, checking out fits, even (*gasp* mining *gasp*).

    If you look at computer game design theory, especially first person shooters, the most highly rated games also have segments where there is a lull in action. During these periods, story is developed, upgrades are bought, exploration is conducted etc. It's really, really important for a game to have a break in the action sequences.

    I suspect there'd be a lot less vitriol directed at high sec from nullseccers if CCP positioned elements of high sec as a lull in the action.

    As for people who treat high sec as their action phases, I'm not sure; I'm not one of those people. But I reckon similar solutions could be found.

    I think EVE could do with some more activities in the "other" category, to be honest, like many other MMOs attempt.

  32. I've never understood why you can go into missions or a belt and kill hundreds of Sanshas and they never do anything about it.
    Warframe has a very interesting concept that if you kill too many of one faction you will get marked and basically at some point a special hit squad will come to try and kill you.
    I think this would be a great addition to Eve. If I kill too many Sanshas they mark me for death, then sometime (read a few days or a week etc...) they will send a special squad to try and kill me. Could be I'm mining, or hauling, or ratting etc...

  33. High Sec Development

    Lets do this my the metrics

    The majority of players never leave high sec.
    Nearly all non capital ship/super capital ship economic activity takes place in high sec.
    High Sec Incursions specifically are an enormous isk faucet with very little downside (hard for all that nice non-consensual pvp)

    How to combat these things:
    1) Make non-fw low sec more attractive (add pirate agents in space or something) - FW space is great and lots of participation is there
    2) Another gate redirect - give the highways in EVE another shuffle that results in the current capital systems/market hubs becoming more isolated and low security systems being more interconnected.
    3) Eliminate ISK payments for high sec incursions - LP only in high sec - increase the frequency of incursions in low and null and have them spread like cancer if not dealt with.
    4) Move Level 4 missions all to low sec.
    5) Drive up market taxes in high sec so that low sec and null sec trade becomes preferred for both the seller and buyer.

    6) All high sec belts in systems with a sec rating higher than 0.6 slowly lose their dynamic belts - they gain infrequent and low quality mining anomalies. 0.5 and 0.6 systems keep their static belts (for now) and regenerate very very slowly but also have dynamic mining anoms at a medium quality and higher frequency than 0.7+. People need to fight over things - this should also be done with a look at the war declaration mechanic which I think should be done through the existing contract system so there can be terms set (surrender fees/item exchange or a pre-decided time limit, and victory conditions based on ship value that is capped at some level based on organizational size.

    Yes this would include a cooldown period for the aggressor and defender so they cannot be griefed out of the game by alt corps/alliances - War Fatigue anyone? The issue of neutral alts in high sec wars does need to be examined. I am in favor of all assistance resulting in a weapons timer for logistics and not simply a suspect timer. This would work in the same manner as a bastion module which only starts counting down after you come out of bastion.

    Perhaps not all of those things but it would be nice to get a gate redirect to reinvigorate things. I have ideas for the null side to rebalance things and give people something to fight for as well.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. The problem is, 12 years ago now Eve launched with High/Low/Null. They kept tinkering with it, learned how players acted and reacted, and built from known knowledge of how the game worked, a fuzzy patchwork quilt of how those 3 areas of space interacted. Each expansion was an addition to the cluster as it's known to operate. There are a lot of decisions made on those assumptions built into the system. For instance, Wormholes. They cannot be self sufficient, ever. They were created with the assumption highsec as it is was there. We did things with it the devs didn't think would happen, and they were quick(for the devs) to pivot with changes over the years which help that emergent gameplay, but it still works from the assumption highsec as it is now exists. Without a vibrant highsec wormholes stop being.

      That's an extreme example, but it's hardly the only one. If the devs start futzing around with highsec too much in a subtractive way, instead of additive, it knocks everything built on the bedrock assumptions of how the game works out of kilter. They can subtract a little, but too much. They can add a little as well, but not too much. The game is like that everywhere. It's all a highwire balancing act with gusts of winds.

      Look at Fozzie Sov, it's had months of blowback from players getting essentially what they asked for. Not exactly, but the same general idea proposed on the white paper from a year ago. It meets nearly all the required ticks, and people hate it. They futzed with it too much and caused a gust of wind that knocked the tight rope walker off.

    3. Giving your customers less bang for their bucks never was a succesful way to improve sales.

      "New highsec 2.0, now with less game for the same money! What could go wrong!?" XD

  34. Risk Reward is out of balance and at least some of these proposals would go a long way to fixing them

  35. (And kudos to Sugar Kyle for asking about how to improve high sec.)

  36. I think before you can ask what should be added to highsec you need to decide what highsec should be. It’s clear from the comments that some people feel fairly strongly that it should be a stepping stone into other areas of the game, a Newbie area if you will that new players should abandon as soon as possible.

    I am in the camp that thinks it should be a vibrant viable area of New Eden that offers a unique playing environment, One that is distinct from Null, Low, and WH’s. Personally I think High Sec should be safer… Not one hundred percent safe, but there should be considerable consequences for choosing the criminal path.

    I think just about everyone except the High Sec Merc’s would agree that the current War Dec system is badly flawed. Currently they are primarily used as a vehicle to Provide High Sec PvP’rs with legitimate targets to engage. Usually targets that stand little actual chance of surviving… I would like to see War Decs work like “Letters of Marque” a highsec merc can then purchase letters of marque from various factions, NPC corporations, etc, that allows them to attack a range of targets...depending on who supplied the letter. IE I want to blap dudes in Ammar, So I buy a letter of marque from Amarr and now I can engage anyone with negative amar standings in amar space, without the intervention of Concord. Trader Joe who doesn't want to get ganked in Amar ensures he has positive standing with amar… (but since “you can't be friends with everyone” this means he has negative standing with the Minmitar and is at risk in Minmitar space.

    I would like to see standings losses for killing Player Characters in highsec. If I have standings of 9.5 with the Caldari, and Code Joe comes along and ganks me while im beavering away mining minerals in Caldari space like a good citizen, then Code Joe should take a standings hit with Caldari. After all his mission running alt would if he killed a caldari navy officer in some mission pocket.

    I would also like to see greater consequences for criminal activity… why am I allowed to dock at the Amarr capital system if i am a wanted criminal? The Faction Police should also make a more energetic pursuit if you are a criminal in highsec, if they pod you, then they should go after your pod, and if they scram it, they you’re arrested and will need to pay your fines to be released.

    I would like to see some beef added to the bounty system so that there is some meaningful game play around being a bounty hunter, and being hunted. Perhaps extending the current LOL i just bountied you for asking a noob question in chat about the wanted sign on your character picture to something that ties in with kill rights, It should be an Isk Sink, but provide the guy placing the bounty with a sense of getting his own back.

    I would like to see Newbie zones (of a sort introduced, and enforced by the game mechanics) One thought that occurs to me is that we currently have level 1.0 security systems with thousands upon thousands of pirates being killed by capsuleers every day, which seems weird … what if Security Mission level was linked to the security of space. We could even make 1.0 systems enforce a safeties always on … or you go criminal immediately if you switch safeties off.

  37. I would also like to see more world building activities in highsec. But in highsec I want to be able to build myself something that isn't able to be kicked over by someone else in a few seconds. It would be brilliant if we could erect player structures (bases) in deadspace pockets with acceleration gates to get into them (with gate keys) even better if we could build structures that include deadspace pocket elements, ie putting a base inside a large shattered asteroid… or a debris cloud… perhaps if we ever get procedurally generated content a way of claiming a deadspace pocket from a mission you've just run… then you place an acceleration gate into it… and can go to town building structures, factories, heck even use it to store ships in a ship array… and only you and the people you've given a key too can get inside… ( ok perhaps in lowsec / null an ability to hack the gate lock… hmmm ) but i highsec let's let people build these things.

    I am looking forward to more NPC’s in space… yes it's a big place, but there's capsuleers all over the place why not the NPC’s?

    Finally, I think Eve would be considerably healthier if there was more content in Highsec aimed at the casual player. More Casuals will filter down to more hardcore players… oh what are we calling them these days… oh yeah Profesional’s … we need more, more of everything, more options not less. more choice, not less. and more consequences…

  38. The writer has outdone himself this time. It is not at all enough; the website is also utmost perfect. I will never forget to visit your site again and again. 토토

  39. This is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere. Brief but very accurate information… Many thanks for sharing this one. 경마사이트

  40. It is a good site post without fail. Not too many people would actually, the way you just did. I am impressed that there is so much information about this subject that has been uncovered and you’ve defeated yourself this time, with so much quality. Good Works! 온라인카지노

  41. I think this is a really good article. You make this information interesting and engaging. You give readers a lot to think about and I appreciate that kind of writing. 토토

  42. Best view i have ever seen ! I loved your post. Thanks Again. Cool. 야한동영상

    Click this link

  43. Thank you ever so for you article post. Really looking forward to read more. Want more. 일본야동

    Click this link

  44. I appreciate your willingness to discuss taboo topics. ipvanish promo code It shows that you are open-minded and willing to have an honest conversation. Your courage to bring up these topics is admirable.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe one day!

 [15:32:10] Trig Vaulter > Sugar Kyle Nice bio - so carebear sweet - oh you have a 50m ISK bounty - so someday more grizzly  [15:32:38 ] Sugar Kyle > /emote raises an eyebrow to Trig  [15:32:40 ] Sugar Kyle > okay :)  [15:32:52 ] Sugar Kyle > maybe one day I will try PvP out When I logged in one of the first things I did was answer a question in Eve Uni Public Help. It was a random question that I knew the answer of. I have 'Sugar' as a keyword so it highlights green and catches my attention. This made me chuckle. Maybe I'll have to go and see what it is like to shoot a ship one day? I could not help but smile. Basi suggested that I put my Titan killmail in my bio and assert my badassery. I figure, naw. It was a roll of the dice that landed me that kill mail. It doesn't define me as a person. Bios are interesting. The idea of a biography is a way to personalize your account. You can learn a lot about a person by what they choose to put in their bio


Halycon said it quite well in a comment he left about the skill point trading proposal for skill point changes. He is conflicted in many different ways. So am I. Somedays, I don't want to be open minded. I do not want to see other points of view. I want to not like things and not feel good about them and it be okay. That is something that is denied me for now. I've stated my opinion about the first round of proposals to trade skills. I don't like them. That isn't good enough. I have to answer why. Others do not like it as well. I cannot escape over to their side and be unhappy with them. I am dragged away and challenged about my distaste.  Some of the people I like most think the change is good. Other's think it has little meaning. They want to know why I don't like it. When this was proposed at the CSM summit, I swiveled my chair and asked if they realized that they were undoing the basic structure that characters and game progression worked under. They said th