Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Makkal]

It is the High->Low->Null chain of economic progression I gape at, more often than not. The quantum leap between High Security and Low/Null Security is so significant there cannot be a middle ground.

The thing is that the way to make more people come into Low space is to make it safer.

Is there a way to make it a middle ground when it comes to safety that won't screw over pirates?

As a non-pirate who has previously operated in low a great deal, the difference between high and low is like... 95% safe vs 30% safe. If there isn't a gate camp then there are pirates who will hunt me down like crazy the moment I step into their tiny spot.

I have no problem with low sec getting some love, but I think that low, as it exists, appeals to a certain psychological profile. If you wanted to get more activity, you'd need to widen that appeal. But such a widening might make it less attractive to those who enjoyed it in the first place.

I have a great deal of sympathy for CCP when it comes to this.

[Ghost Hunter]

It is the High->Low->Null chain of economic progression I gape at, more often than not. The quantum leap between High Security and Low/Null Security is so significant there cannot be a middle ground.

The thing is that the way to make more people come into Low space is to make it safer.

Is there a way to make it a middle ground when it comes to safety that won't screw over pirates?

As a non-pirate who has previously operated in low a great deal, the difference between high and low is like... 95% safe vs 30% safe. If there isn't a gate camp then there are pirates who will hunt me down like crazy the moment I step into their tiny spot.

I have no problem with low sec getting some love, but I think that low, as it exists, appeals to a certain psychological profile. If you wanted to get more activity, you'd need to widen that appeal. But such a widening might make it less attractive to those who enjoyed it in the first place.

I have a great deal of sympathy for CCP when it comes to this.

An idea I used to entertain was the concept of pirate havens. In essence, single solar systems with black market trading hubs that shady people and pirates can jointly operate out of; token uber-NPC guard as necessary. If one took this further along, you could create safety in the guise of prospective business coming to a haven.

For instance, if a haven was the only place you could market illegal tech from (Pirate Tech, implants, etc), then to get that powerful gear someone has to go to the haven at some point. Or, alternatively, to sell the gear. From that you could expand into other functionalities to liven the feature up, and form the basis of a criminal eco-system.

In this context, safety would come from the Pirates themselves - their reputation and their business, if you are there to conduct on their market. That would make for some interesting emergent activity.

Edit ; worth noting, the reasoning I abandoned the idea was due to the safety of Blockade Runners / Cloaky T3s / Jump Freighters. Established organizations do not truly need an escort feature, so it is mostly newer or under equipped persons. Thusly, 'pirate safety' is rather nominal.

[Vincent Pryce]

People who haven't played FW actively for the past six months - or ever for that matter - should probably refrain from commenting about it as they have fuck all actual knowledge what they are actually talking about. They have the outsiders view and it's different from the insider one. Aside from that fact FW has emptied the non-FW systems. They are quite dead apart from say Molden Heath, which is also far away from the golden days.

As for those who like to cry foul of isk making in FW; If there was a way to make piracy a viable playstyle with steady isk income to be made you would see farmers there too. That is a simple fact of EVE; if you can make money of it, someone will figure a way to farm it.

As a pirate, or more accurately a former pirate I've just given up on Piracy because it's become fucking boring runabout of t3's, titan humping, logiloving and the plague of OGBs or instalock camps. There's no appeal in piracy to me anymore. It's just a fact that for the most part that appealed to me in piracy back in 2008 does not really exist anymore, this what we have now is not piracy to me, it's something else but not piracy.

[Desiderya]

It's "Shoot everything that moves."

What FW did for lowsec was to make it more active. This did come at the cost of non-FW lowsec systems, because after all people gravitate towards activity.
For me, lowsec means a bubble-free enviroment and FW means a free war dec against hordes of players. The LP system allows even new players to be fairly self-sufficient on their income, which is an important aspect for any sort of PvP. The plex mechanic also is a good catalyst for fights.

I do, however, agree with Ghost that there is very little in the game mechanics that support being a pirate. Whether lowsec is the perfect avenue to live that out remains to be seen. Ideally I'd like nullsec to move away from the 'megabloc' alliances that claim entire regions to a system much more suited for organisations holding on to constellations and single systems. *shrug*

[Lyn Farel]

As long as you will have to orbit buttons and farm boring things in FW (like in most of Eve in general), people will always come in nano ships and stuff to avoid any pvp and do it faster.

Farming activities and pvp will always be more or less incompatible in terms of fun. Like 2 magnets with the same polarity.

[Silas Vitalia]

FW and "Lowsec" are two different things, and two separate discussions.    Let's not lump them both together.

The benefit of pvping in generic lowsec is the fact you won't get podded, there's no bubbles, and you are fighting a different class of ships than you would in most null or FW areas.

There needs to be more new gameplay than there is of course, but it's already unique.

[Lyn Farel]

FW and "Lowsec" are two different things, and two separate discussions.    Let's not lump them both together.

Well, people were mentionned a pirate FW as well so...

[Ghost Hunter]

FW and "Lowsec" are two different things, and two separate discussions.    Let's not lump them both together.

Well, people were mentionned a pirate FW as well so...

You'll want to direct it here for Pirate FW ideas. Any criminal/Pirate systems designed would preferably be independent of any Faction War mechanics, or something in the guise there of.

FW and "Lowsec" are two different things, and two separate discussions.    Let's not lump them both together.

The benefit of pvping in generic lowsec is the fact you won't get podded, there's no bubbles, and you are fighting a different class of ships than you would in most null or FW areas.

There needs to be more new gameplay than there is of course, but it's already unique.

How do you mean, different class of ships? The only one excluded I've noticed is the light interdictors.

[Aria Jenneth]

How do you mean, different class of ships? The only one excluded I've noticed is the light interdictors.

Those aren't even exactly excluded (note that interdictors have historically had a presence in FW, just not for their usual purpose). However, there are differences in what people will practically bring to a fight. A lot of it boils down to not having to fear bubble camps, but having to fear interference from gate guns.

As an example, speed tanking and ECM-specialized ships both suffer severe limitations in low. Doing stuff that upsets the gate guns gets you toasted. These factors influence fleet makeup.

[Silas Vitalia]

How do you mean, different class of ships? The only one excluded I've noticed is the light interdictors.

Those aren't even exactly excluded (note that interdictors have historically had a presence in FW, just not for their usual purpose). However, there are differences in what people will practically bring to a fight. A lot of it boils down to not having to fear bubble camps, but having to fear interference from gate guns.

As an example, speed tanking and ECM-specialized ships both suffer severe limitations in low. Doing stuff that upsets the gate guns gets you toasted. These factors influence fleet makeup.

^  I meant that in all non-FW lowsec areas you are generally unlikely to be fighting ships that cannot handle a few shots from gate guns.   90% of my fights in my lowsec areas are generally BC and Higher (T2 cruiser hulls and higher), which has its own particular flavor for fittings and what you expect to shoot and be shot by. 

It's very very different from FW where you can expect to deal with a lot more zippy fast things tackling you and shooting your pods, vs my areas which are slower more heavy things, to paint with a broad brush.


I only point this out because the generic 'piracy' gameplay often relies on being in ships that can handle aggression by sentries (even if for a few shots), in order to pull aggression from targets and initiate combat from people who might not be interested.

[Aria Jenneth]

Oh-- also, pirating as a career is indeed a vestige. Most pirates have other income sources, and pirate because piracy is fun. If they had to break even to survive, they'd be a lot rarer.

Ironically, that might revive it as a profession, but good luck finding a way to enforce for-profit pirating.

[Ulphus]

Let piracy be about the fights, not about the rewards.

 I agree that something like FW would be a bad idea, but piracy should (in my view) be about the treasure!

At the very least, I'd like it to be economically viable.

[BloodBird]

Thanks for making the tread Ghost.

In my opinion, piracy WOULD be more economically viable *IF* pirates would ransom more and actually be trustworthy to the point where they *DID* let you go, hell, might even escort you to the nearest high-sec gate. The reason why the biggest income for pirates (ransoms) don't work is due to years of "thank you, now you die anyway, trololololol". Shooting the ransomed opponent even after he/she paid you simply enforce to everyone that ransoming leads to only one thing - losing more isk than the ship, due to pirate being greedy and dishonorable. Ever every 100 pirates that claim to honor ransoms maybe 10 actually do, and 1000 more don't even care to mention it. The odds that you will get your ship out after paying is way to low to be viable.

If these odds were somehow made more viable people (assuming they had the isk) would be more willing to pay the ransoms when asked, and pirates might actually have a 'piratey' income source. IF it was more easy to get your ransomed isk when asked for, more people would do it, and if every pirate honored it, low-sec would mean, to the outsiders, as "that place where if you get cough you will have to pay up to get home" as opposed to "that place you go to get hunted down and killed no matter what you do". Apart from FW, low-sec is far to much risk vs far to little reward, making few targets and many, many pireates in their many home-systems roaming about. These days it's mostly militas vs militias vs pirates, screw the ransoms.

Finally, I'd like to say that in the older days of piracy (Caribbean etc) it was pirates praying on traders while trying to avoid the navy and/or patrols by 'the police/vigilantes' and so on, in EVE it's more like piracy vs the navies, because anti-piracy has barely existed throughout the years, due to low-reasons to care and little gain, and traders or haulers... chased out of low-sec ages ago. They will not be back, to be offered protection rackets, or prayed on, or shielded by anti-pirate patrols or anything, until low-sec become profitable enough to make up for the huge risks involved. Ultimately, that task falls to CCP.

In my opinion, I'd love to see piracy, low-sec industry, anti-piracy and everything related to them improved to the point where all 3 are viable options.

[Natalcya Katla]

Drop the high-sec connections between all the Empires, add several low-sec connections of equivalent (hub-to-hub) length so there won't be any one single obvious bottleneck to camp between each of them, ban all cynos from lowsec and then adjust NPC trade goods prices in such a way that ferrying them from one Empire's territory into another's will actually carry some real profit. Also, bring back the old mechanic of agents giving out trade goods rewards instead of isk rewards as mission time bonuses, so that all the avid mission runners of New Eden get tempted to ship their loot off across the cluster.

If they do that there will be merchant traffic through lowsec. As long as trade is almost exclusively about goods that characters can make themselves anywhere, and you don't need to risk low-sec to get from one market to the next in any case, there is no incentive to go through low.

I remember back in 06, there was real isk to earn running Small Arms from Fed space into Syndicate. We would set up buy orders for small arms in mission hubs, knowing that mission runners frequently got them as time bonuses for missions. Then we'd collect it all together and haul it two or three jumps into Syndicate for a tidy profit. I'd like to see more of that returning. Also, any EVE player owes it to him-/herself to jump from Orvolle into PF-346 in a fully packed Iteron at least once in their careers. It's a terrifying and exhilarating experience.

[Silas Vitalia]

Forcing trade through low is great idea, but current game mechanics make catching people who don't want to be caught nearly impossible.

You'd have to deal with cloaking as a game mechanic, and especially MWD cloak trickery.