Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 17:09:00 -
[1]
I was wondering how big of a chance there is, that we would see the high sec border between Gallente Federation/Caldari State being reduced to a low sec border? Same goes for the high sec border between Minmatar Republic/Amarr Empire.
Has there ever been any brainstorming/discussion about this whole area of: - warring/opposing factions sharing a high sec border - Jita pulling more and more trade from the smaller hubs support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Aiwha
Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 17:18:00 -
[2]
NPC nullsec systems on every border crossing.
Gullible
|
Koshs SC
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 17:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Aiwha NPC nullsec systems on every border crossing.
This.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 17:48:00 -
[4]
Yes, the economy should be destroyed to benefit a handful of yerrr pirates.
|
Pushme Pullyou
Wingrove Weapons Systems
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 17:54:00 -
[5]
It's a bit of a moot point now JF's are in game - I JF my stuff to lowsec near Jita, cyno right outside a station with a giant docking range, if I get attacked I just dock, if not fly straight out, no border crossing required, minimal risk to the freighter (if cyno guy doesn't know what he's doing and puts you in bump range and you twang off the station).
Back when CCP last dabbled in what were once trade routes, this wasn't an option - now it is.
If they did put nullsec NPC space between borders it would only penalise people that don't have JF's, and I don't suppose penalising the less well off cross-section of the player base is something CCP would be particularly interested in.
~Push
|
SiR3N
The One Upsmanship Club
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 18:20:00 -
[6]
+1 for placing entire nullsec regions in-between every hisec region.
What happened to Yulai when gates were removed was very effective. Jita needs the same and more.
|
Pushme Pullyou
Wingrove Weapons Systems
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 18:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: SiR3N +1 for placing entire nullsec regions in-between every hisec region.
What happened to Yulai when gates were removed was very effective. Jita needs the same and more.
In what way was it effective? if you mean it killed Yulai as a trade hub then yes, you're absolutely spot-on. If you mean it killed the notion of trade hubs, and spread trade out evenly, then Jita's existence and popularity exposes the lie.
The thing is with eve is that it partly reflects the real world in some senses - the real world has rural areas and urbanised trade centres, and for the exact same reasons, so does eve - this is something shaped by the player base, not by CCP - the fact that Yulai got nerfed and Jita immediately sprang up in it's place is evidence to support that.
Jita is just Yulai mk II, and if you kill Jita, there'll just be another one pop up somewhere else.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 18:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pushme Pullyou It's a bit of a moot point now JF's are in game - I JF my stuff to lowsec near Jita, cyno right outside a station with a giant docking range, if I get attacked I just dock
àand all that's needed to counter that tactic is ~10k total DPS ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Quemist
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 18:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aiwha NPC nullsec systems on every border crossing.
I wonder what the effects of this would be besides being awesome. Mission runners already stick to their own faction for the most part anyway. Sprinkling in a bit of null might be fun for FW as well. New players are going to die anyway but adding another warning box might be ok.
CCP won't be accused of racial segregation anymore with the new character creator. I don't think... haven't tried it out to much.
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 19:02:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Pushme Pullyou It's a bit of a moot point now JF's are in game - I JF my stuff to lowsec near Jita, cyno right outside a station with a giant docking range, if I get attacked I just dock
àand all that's needed to counter that tactic is ~10k total DPS
Well that's not that much a single frost mage ca.. umm...yea.. I'll be... ya know *running away*
|
|
Pushme Pullyou
Wingrove Weapons Systems
|
Posted - 2011.01.15 19:43:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Pushme Pullyou on 15/01/2011 19:43:11
Originally by: Tippia àand all that's needed to counter that tactic is ~10k total DPS
And all that's needed to counter THAT is cyno guy opening his scanner before launching cyno....
You're right of course, a lone JF in lowsec is easily ganked given the right hardware on tap, but effective scouting and scanning can reduce the risk associated with jumping a 4b isk hull into lowsec to levels that I can accept, at the very least.
~Push
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 05:00:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Tres Farmer on 16/01/2011 05:01:38
Originally by: Goose99 Yes, the economy should be destroyed to benefit a handful of yerrr pirates. YARRRR!!
Separatation of Caldari/Amarr market from Gallente/Minmatar market != destruction of the economy.
Originally by: Pushme Pullyou It's a bit of a moot point now JF's are in game - I JF my stuff to lowsec near Jita, cyno right outside a station with a giant docking range, if I get attacked I just dock, if not fly straight out, no border crossing required, minimal risk to the freighter (if cyno guy doesn't know what he's doing and puts you in bump range and you twang off the station).
Back when CCP last dabbled in what were once trade routes, this wasn't an option - now it is.
If they did put nullsec NPC space between borders it would only penalise people that don't have JF's, and I don't suppose penalising the less well off cross-section of the player base is something CCP would be particularly interested in.
JFs cost fuel, 1 more account to run and have 30% of the cargo capacity of a normal freighter. Why should there be full scale trade between warring factions? Why should there be unrestricted travel between warring factions?
As for "penalizing" the playerbase.. Incursions are happening and Eve is supposed to be a harsh, cold place.
Originally by: Pushme Pullyou In what way was it effective? if you mean it killed Yulai as a trade hub then yes, you're absolutely spot-on. If you mean it killed the notion of trade hubs, and spread trade out evenly, then Jita's existence and popularity exposes the lie.
The thing is with eve is that it partly reflects the real world in some senses - the real world has rural areas and urbanised trade centres, and for the exact same reasons, so does eve - this is something shaped by the player base, not by CCP - the fact that Yulai got nerfed and Jita immediately sprang up in it's place is evidence to support that.
Jita is just Yulai mk II, and if you kill Jita, there'll just be another one pop up somewhere else.
All high sec:Jita to Dodixie 15 jumps Jita to Amarr 9 jumps Jita to Hek 19 jumps Jita to Rens 25 jumps Yulai was 'killed' by removing the highway gates, but high sec was still left in one big block. It is only natural that one single superhub formes in one big block of space.
Originally by: Quemist I wonder what the effects of this would be besides being awesome. Mission runners already stick to their own faction for the most part anyway. Sprinkling in a bit of null might be fun for FW as well. New players are going to die anyway but adding another warning box might be ok.
That's exactly the question, what would the effects be and has CCP ever thought about it? support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 05:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Goose99 Yes, the economy should be destroyed to benefit a handful of yerrr pirates.
The economy would flourish.
Regional markets would become stronger than ever.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:04:00 -
[14]
When CCP is removing JBs in Null, shouldn't they remove high sec borders between warring factions in high sec too? support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:42:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tres Farmer When CCP is removing JBs in Null, shouldn't they remove high sec borders between warring factions in high sec too?
Out of curiosity, it is a stealth whine about the hypothetic possible removal of the JB or about the lack of targets from gatecampers?
In both instances it is essentially a whine.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 08:53:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Grimpak on 16/01/2011 08:54:24
Originally by: Pushme Pullyou If you mean it killed the notion of trade hubs, and spread trade out evenly, then Jita's existence and popularity exposes the lie.
The thing is with eve is that it partly reflects the real world in some senses - the real world has rural areas and urbanised trade centres, and for the exact same reasons, so does eve - this is something shaped by the player base, not by CCP - the fact that Yulai got nerfed and in it's place is evidence to support that.
Jita is just Yulai mk II, and if you kill Jita, there'll just be another one pop up somewhere else.
well you need to take into consideration that what made Jita into what it is today was actually a combination of several factors, one of the being the popularity of Achura back in the day. and no, Jita didn't "immediately sprang up" on the Yulai downfall. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:05:00 -
[17]
It would most likely make production and similar stuff a bit easier for new chars outside caldari space. Why? Because everyone who isnt new just moves to caldari space. Caldari space has arround 10 times more good agents than other space (and i am not kidding there) and you got jita, why would you possibly stay in other space?
Just seems poorly conceiled complain about wanting more unarmed targets tbh. If you want easy kills, do like carebears, run a lvl 4 mission.
|
Penjual Sayur
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:07:00 -
[18]
Rather than killing the ecomony, i think it'll add color to it. Price variation differ from region to region, region specialty goods, etc just to name a few.
|
Eamiela
Caldari Terry-Thomas's School for Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:16:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Tres Farmer Edited by: Tres Farmer on 16/01/2011 08:14:35 I was wondering how big of a chance there is, that we would see the high sec border between Gallente Federation/Caldari State being reduced to a low sec border? Same goes for the high sec border between Minmatar Republic/Amarr Empire.
Has there ever been any brainstorming/discussion about this whole area of: - warring/opposing factions sharing a high sec border - Jita pulling more and more trade from the smaller hubs
Support this idea - would be great from a factional warfare point of view and game play back story. Also it makes sense from a practical point of view: over the years CCP has added a lot of extra null-sec space to allow more people in 0.0 - we have never any new low sec systems and we could do with some to allow low sec dwellers and factional warfare to better prosper. This would help boost trade hubs, boost factional warfare and battles between FW groups and pirates.
Even though I doubt CCP will implement these kind of changes, low sec does need a boost. People are all packed in around the same couple of systems - give us more systems and importantly, more high sec to low sec short cut routes to allow travellers more choices over their routes whilst also helping to spread FW and piracy out across low sec.
|
Dr Sirius
Cybernetic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 09:32:00 -
[20]
It would be nice to have some sort of system to allow players to influence the security status of systems - albeit in a limited way, don't want to have systems bouncing in and out of hi/lo/nullsec all the time --- I'm not a real Doctor but I'll have a go anyway... |
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:02:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Tres Farmer When CCP is removing JBs in Null, shouldn't they remove high sec borders between warring factions in high sec too?
Out of curiosity, it is is this a stealth whine about the hypothetic possible removal of the JB or about the lack of targets from gatecampers?
In both instances it is essentially a whine.
The removal of the JBs is lodged, just not the when. Read the CSM Minutes again and personally I'm fine with it, as the population out there has it to easy to source all the slave work from empire space.
As for whining about low targets on gatecamps.. way to go my dear. The above part is about trade concentrating in Jita.. and that way too fast and way too much (QEN 3/2010, page 14, table 7.. every hub is loosing population, but Jita is winning). Why is everyone so afraid of having two big blocs of high sec space instead of just one?
If you create enough low sec connections between the two blocs (at least 3 times more than there are now) you have many possibilities to slip through if you really want/need to.
support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:29:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 16/01/2011 10:29:41
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Tres Farmer When CCP is removing JBs in Null, shouldn't they remove high sec borders between warring factions in high sec too?
Out of curiosity, it is is this a stealth whine about the hypothetic possible removal of the JB or about the lack of targets from gatecampers?
In both instances it is essentially a whine.
The removal of the JBs is lodged, just not the when. Read the CSM Minutes again and personally I'm fine with it, as the population out there has it to easy to source all the slave work from empire space.
As for whining about low targets on gatecamps.. way to go my dear. The above part is about trade concentrating in Jita.. and that way too fast and way too much (QEN 3/2010, page 14, table 7.. every hub is loosing population, but Jita is winning). Why is everyone so afraid of having two big blocs of high sec space instead of just one?
If you create enough low sec connections between the two blocs (at least 3 times more than there are now) you have many possibilities to slip through if you really want/need to.
Oh my god. No. It is just plain wrong.
There are many ways to fix Jita and proposing 0.0 or low sec borders are just plain wrong for empire inhabitants. Making it fun for some to have easy kills on empire inhabitants is just plain wrong.
If you want to fix Jita, just slap a 70% trade tax on sales and 10% trade tax elsewhere will cause Jita to depopulate overnight.
It is like in real life, if spending goes out of hand, slap a nice big tax and the demographic and behaviour will somehow change. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Go vote! Put voice for silent majority. LOVE PVP, HATE grief |
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:31:00 -
[23]
Sorry if I'm late to the party, but did you say Jump Bridges are being removed?
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Sorry if I'm late to the party, but did you say Jump Bridges are being removed?
Originally by: CSM Minutes DEC/2010 3of3, page 8 The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing. However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, ôget rid of them.ö Greyscale: ôAnyone disagree with that?ö CSM response varied between ôNope,ö ôNahö and a simple ôNoö. Greyscale: ôSweet!ö û meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCPÆs table. It is suggested that killing JB's and adding a cyno spool-up might be the core of a solution to the force projection problem. And spool-up plus a minor range nerf could handle the issue of Titan JB hotdrops as well.
support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 10:52:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire *snip* Oh my god. No. It is just plain wrong.
There are many ways to fix Jita and proposing 0.0 or low sec borders are just plain wrong for empire inhabitants. Making it fun for some to have easy kills on empire inhabitants is just plain wrong.
Silly kills? If you don't cross the border you won't get killed. If you're in a small fast ship you won't get killed. If you fly longer routes around the most prominent camps you won't get killed. And btw.. this is not Hello Kitty Online, this is Eve, a cold harsh place.
Why should factions at war with each other have a high sec border? To support trade with the enemy? Yeah right..
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire If you want to fix Jita, just slap a 70% trade tax on sales and 10% trade tax elsewhere will cause Jita to depopulate overnight.
It is like in real life, if spending goes out of hand, slap a nice big tax and the demographic and behaviour will somehow change.
I don't want to fix Jita. A hub is ok from an economic point of view, there will always be congregation.. it's just one hub that sucks up all trade there is in New Eden is plain wrong.
If CCP were to implement this, the load on Jita would get a bit lower (the cap of 1,600 now and maybe 2,000 later will be all the time reached during the next year) and another hub in the other bloc would take it - probably Hek. We'd then have two bigger hubs, no false thoughts there. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Eamiela Support this idea - would be great from a factional warfare point of view and game play back story. Also it makes sense from a practical point of view: over the years CCP has added a lot of extra null-sec space to allow more people in 0.0 - we have never any new low sec systems and we could do with some to allow low sec dwellers and factional warfare to better prosper. This would help boost trade hubs, boost factional warfare and battles between FW groups and pirates.
Well we did get all of Black Rise added in Empyrean Age. The very least that CCP should do would be to get all lowsec pockets tied together.
Of course as an outlaw I wouldn't mind more systems to use.
|
Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar Solar Nexus. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:26:00 -
[27]
I wouldn't take what Greyscale said to heart. Alot of what is discussed at CSM meetings are just brainstorming ideas and seeing the reaction.
The idea of bordering off factions from opposing ones is actually something that does make sense and why its not already there is beyond me. I hated it when CCP decided it was a good idea to add even more connecting routes into Jita now you cant even get into Jita during peak times. The idea of creating major regional hubs that mirror Jita is something that needs to be done. This maybe a step.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 11:44:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 16/01/2011 11:48:01
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Tres Farmer When CCP is removing JBs in Null, shouldn't they remove high sec borders between warring factions in high sec too?
Out of curiosity, it is is this a stealth whine about the hypothetic possible removal of the JB or about the lack of targets from gatecampers?
In both instances it is essentially a whine.
The removal of the JBs is lodged, just not the when. Read the CSM Minutes again and personally I'm fine with it, as the population out there has it to easy to source all the slave work from empire space.
Quote: The CSM was somewhat divided on how aggressive CCP should be with any nerfing. However, one CSM suggested, with respect to the nerfing of jump bridges, ôget rid of them.ö
Greyscale: ôAnyone disagree with that?ö CSM response varied between ôNope,ö ôNahö and a simple ôNoö.
Greyscale: ôSweet!ö û meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCPÆs table.
It is suggested that killing JB's and adding a cyno spool-up might be the core of a solution to the force projection problem. And spool-up plus a minor range nerf could handle the issue of Titan JB hotdrops as well.
"Lodged", yeah. "that option will then not be discarded" is several light years from "it is lodged, we only need to decide when".
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Why should factions at war with each other have a high sec border? To support trade with the enemy? Yeah right..
Why should factions at wars will allow pirates to occupy the routes used for the war effort? 10 minutes sweeps (with random variance) of the gates by the controlling faction navy to cheep them clear for the passage of reinforcement and supplyes.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 12:29:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Silly kills? If you don't cross the border you won't get killed. If you're in a small fast ship you won't get killed. If you fly longer routes around the most prominent camps you won't get killed. And btw.. this is not Hello Kitty Online, this is Eve, a cold harsh place.
Why should factions at war with each other have a high sec border? To support trade with the enemy? Yeah right..
That whole reasoning you gave seems to intend on segregating players in their starter nations and only to penalise them from progressing on should they decide that they have started wrongly. Instead of getting the chance to pack and move, they need to sacrifice and restart in a new place from scratch because they can only relocate if they fly in a small ships.
Reading the argument for the second time again seems the intention is to make it difficult for empire inhabitants to move around. There seems to be no other intention other than what I have mentioned.
Also empires at war have high sec. border because they own the system and they control it. If they own a system and not control it then it becomes low sec. I do not see how this can relate to support trade with the enemy. It is about sovereignty.
Originally by: Tres Farmer
I don't want to fix Jita. A hub is ok from an economic point of view, there will always be congregation.. it's just one hub that sucks up all trade there is in New Eden is plain wrong.
If CCP were to implement this, the load on Jita would get a bit lower (the cap of 1,600 now and maybe 2,000 later will be all the time reached during the next year) and another hub in the other bloc would take it - probably Hek. We'd then have two bigger hubs, no false thoughts there.
Not really. If it was to be implemented and another mega-hub forms, then apply the same higher tax rate on those system and behaviour will change.
Tax is a very powerful tool with regards to influence behaviour and it is one of the best tool that has ever invented. It is probably good enough to be almost divine. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Go vote! Put voice for silent majority. LOVE PVP, HATE grief |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:08:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Tres Farmer on 16/01/2011 13:10:37
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Greyscale ôSweet!ö û meaning that option will then not be discarded when the topic of jump bridges will be on CCPÆs table.
"Lodged", yeah. "that option will then not be discarded" is several light years from "it is lodged, we only need to decide when".
Ok, I exagerrated. But from the wording of the whole passage it sounds not many at CCP are happy about the state of affairs that are JBs. I also merely used it as 'opener'. Mea culpa.
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Tres Farmer Why should factions at war with each other have a high sec border? To support trade with the enemy? Yeah right..
Why should factions at war allow pirates to occupy the routes used for the war effort? 10 minutes sweeps (with random variance) of the gates by the controlling faction navy to keep them clear for the passage of reinforcement and supplies.
Show me ANY war border zone where travellers and traders can nilly willy fly around as they please.. Man, out there in zero-zero they don't even let neutrals fly around in their space when there is peace.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire That whole reasoning you gave seems to intend on segregating players in their starter nations and only to penalise them from progressing on should they decide that they have started wrongly. Instead of getting the chance to pack and move, they need to sacrifice and restart in a new place from scratch because they can only relocate if they fly in a small ships.
They can also fly with an Iteron5 full of their stuff along one of the backwater routes, if they really want to (survival chance probably around 30-60%). How much stuff are we talking here? A Freighter full of Velators and Civilian Mining Lasers? How big is the migration of Noobs? 5 Jumps around their starter system?
Also what stops them from selling all their stuff on one side of the fence and buy new stuff over the border (You said they left for good and wont come back)?
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Reading the argument for the second time again seems the intention is to make it difficult for empire inhabitants to move around. There seems to be no other intention other than what I have mentioned.
The intention is indeed to cripple AFK travel from one end of high sec to the other.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Also empires at war have high sec. border because they own the system and they control it. If they own a system and not control it then it becomes low sec. I do not see how this can relate to support trade with the enemy. It is about sovereignty.
The Empire factions reach out into low sec space. And if you want to trade with the enemy you don't do it over the official high sec border.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Originally by: Tres Farmer I don't want to fix Jita. A hub is ok from an economic point of view, there will always be congregation.. it's just one hub that sucks up all trade there is in New Eden is plain wrong.
If CCP were to implement this, the load on Jita would get a bit lower (the cap of 1,600 now and maybe 2,000 later will be all the time reached during the next year) and another hub in the other bloc would take it - probably Hek. We'd then have two bigger hubs, no false thoughts there.
Not really. If it was to be implemented and another mega-hub forms, then apply the same higher tax rate on those system and behaviour will change.
Tax is a very powerful tool with regards to influence behaviour and it is one of the best tool that has ever invented. It is probably good enough to be almost divine.
Then you just push the hub around.. there will always be hubs. That's the same silly solution which had been executed on Yulai.
If you cut high sec in two parts instead, there will always be 2 big hubs afterwards. One might be a bit bigger, no doubt.. but 50% of the high sec population will not really bother to reach it and go to the other. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |