Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 17:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
Valea Silpha wrote:Making it more dangerous to trade only seems like a good idea if you camp gates tbh. It would make the economy even more open to manipulation and definitely would increase prices by a wide margin. These are "bad" things why? Manipulation = strategy and intelligent, merit-based reward, which EVE traditionally encourages. Prices = ONLY higher if you insist on buying everything at Jita even though it makes no sense anymore. Most intelligent people would pick up on this and begin to trade at the 4 separate trade hubs, not just Jita.
Quote:Jita would still reign supreme as the trade-hub of choice and everyone else would either have to fly their cheap ships through massively camped gates, or pay more wherever else they happen to be at the time. Basically it would punish people for picking the wrong race. All of this is bad. And here you completely contradict yourself. Up above, you complained about high prices for imported goods being such a terrible thing, but now you completely ignore that and for some reason believe that Jita would be the ONE trading place, despite those prices.
This makes no sense. Just like you, EVERYONE ELSE hates high prices, too. Which means that most people would NOT continue to import expensive goods to Jita and just pay double prices anyway. Instead, they would shop elsewhere for those goods...
Make up your mind. You can't complain about how the prices would be horrible and ALSO complain about how people don't care about high prices and only care about trading at Jita instead, all at the same time.
Quote:Also, this doesn't only change hauling for trade. It also effects hauling for personal stuff. Moving a dozen ships is already long dull and painful, moving them through pirate infested low sec is horrific. The net result is that it encourages not only people to never leave high-sec, but also to never leave amarr/jita/dodixie/rens. Joined a new corp ? Well you can either fly your ships through the biggest choke points in eve, or you can lose a minimum of 20% of everything you spent selling them. It didn't work out ? Well you can either sell up again, or run the gauntlet again. No. "Hauling for personal stuff" is THE SAME THING AS "hauling for trade"
Day 1 of Econ 101 teaches your opportunity costs. Every time you haul your own stuff from A to B, you are paying the cost of whatever the highest value activity is that you could have been doing at that time. Which for most people (who aren't haulers), will be a higher number than what it would have cost them to just hire a contractor, or putting up good buy and sell prices on the market.
Thus, you are basically hiring yourself as a hauler every time you haul your own stuff. And since most people aren't professional haulers, usually this is the wrong choice, because you aren't specialized for that, and will do it inefficiently. Just like hiring a specialized hauler to defend you in a cruiser would be the wrong choice. Thus, I fail to see why we should treat these situations differently, or why it would be a bad thing for you to begin contracting your hauls to professionals who know how to get through the lowsec belt.
Because guess what? Hauling a dozen ships is NOT "horrific" for somebody with a freighter and a team of scouts to find a safe path for them. they can haul 35+ cruisers in one trip, and probably do it faster than you could move a single ship, and for less money. And they can clear out your entire hangar's worth of junk too at the same time, at the same advantages.
Just because your poor business choices would become even worse business choices is not a reason to avoid implementing a good game design feature. There are plenty of choices you could make that would save you all of that hassle AND save you money AND would work just fine in this modified world... |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 17:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
Valea Silpha wrote:In terms of PvP, this idea makes any empire pvp basically impossible. Run a locator agent on a target, and oh no there's a hundred pirates between my three dudes and him. So no pvp for us. Oh they all jump cloned into amarr space? So I guess this whole war is useless now. Fun fact: people don't fight wars in real life as a series of 1 on 1 duels.
One of the main goals of introducing faction warface, IIRC, was to get people to work more in TEAMS. And if you are in a team, like in a real war, then you can punch through a silly pirate gate camp easily, and proceed on to destroy your enemy targets or take over control points.
This seems more like an advantage to me than a disadvantage...
Quote:Under no circumstance would the risk be worth the reward. For new people, it back-stabs them for shopping for a good price. No, it punishes them for completely ignoring multiple warning signs all at once: 1) The tutorials which repeatedly say to be careful about low sec space, and which in the future would specifically mention the divided empires 2) The warning the game gives you when you attempt to activate a star gate to a low sec system 3) The orange boxes on your planned route in the upper left 4) The fact that prices are only listed region-wide in the market screen (meaning that for them to even KNOW there are lower prices in another empire, they'd have to have an alt or be using a third party program, which implies they know how the system works already)
People who ignore multiple warning signs without knowing what they are doing are idiots, and I don't feel sorry for them at all, sorry.
Quote:'Pirates' as used to exist are a complete myth. You are thinking of 'privateers', but I'll let that go. And they did not outnumber the merchantmen ever. Nor did merchant ships travel alone, ever. Pirate ships were small and fast, and survived by every now and again picking off a straggler. The value of a ship and cargo taken would pay every man on a pirate ship for a year. There was no such thing as pirate infested waters, because the pirates had to constantly be moving, because the navies would come and kill them if they stayed still. They also needed a friendly harbour (no harbour would ever accept a freelance pirate btw because all sailors of all navies hated them, that's why you needed to be a privateer so you could use allied ports, and of course without a harbour you couldn't sell the hundreds of tons of cargo you stole). Your history lesson is meaningless, because the suggested change in this thread is NOT "add more pirates." The suggested change is "add low-sec belts in between empires.
Any pirates who choose to enter those belts would be there precisely because it was advantageous or profitable for them to be there. There's nothing artificial or unrealistic about it at all. Because ANY pirates in that location AT ALL would be there as a result of emergent gameplay, of their own choice, because it gave them some advantage.
So why weren't there so many pirates in real life? Oh I don't know, maybe because it was a COMPLETELY different situation? Let's see:
1) In the far future, offense would become cheaper and stronger much more quickly than defense would. This is a trend we see in real life. People don't build castles anymore, because walls couldn't keep up with bombs. Instead, we fight by gaining intelligence about target locations, and once you know where a target is, theyre usually as good as dead in modern warfare. In EVE, this means that a frigate which can take down a merchant ship is comparatively cheap and risk free, compared to the days of sail on Earth. This is a realistic change that would realistically and emergently result in a higher proportion of pirates in real life, too.
2) On Earth, there were very few chokepoints where ships HAD to travel through, and they were few enough that navies could heavily defend them. Stargates, by comparison, are MANY in number, and cannot all be policed (by CONCORD) as cost effectively. This also realistically implies more pirates. In fact, you can see a miniature example of this in places like Singapore, where there ARE a lot of real life pirates, precisely because there are a series of narrow straits which are campable, but also too numerous for the authorities to defend. Result? Lots o' pirates, just like in EVE.
3) Pirates in the golden age of sail were numerous in part because everybody was always at war with everyone else. In modern day Earth, this is not true, meaning fewer opportunities. But in EVE, there are hundreds of corp and empire wars everywhere, which naturally leads to more pirates.
3) Like you say, merchant ships didn't travel alone. In Eve, they do, which is another reason why it makes sense there are more pirates... But this is not a hard-coded game mechanic. People CHOOSE to travel alone. With divided empires, this would be a poor choice (unless you have a cloaked ship), and people would quickly learn to not do that anymore.
Most of these reasons for more pirates have everything to do with the intended, basic mechanics of EVE, and nothing to do with the change proposed in this thread. |
Lavitakus Bromier
The Scope Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
I'll I hear is let's isolate and separate the high sec regions making the life of a merchant even more difficult then it is. If you isolate high sec like that freighters are ganna get less used. Right now you hardly see a freighter pilot fly flew lowsec at all. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
57
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:I'll I hear is let's isolate and separate the high sec regions making the life of a merchant even more difficult then it is. If you isolate high sec like that freighters are ganna get less used. Right now you hardly see a freighter pilot fly flew lowsec at all.
Freighters are useful and necessary for things other than trading, not to mention a trader can still use a cloaky hauler and cross lowsec and probably make more per trip than he does now. Also the gameplay your trying to protect is boring, really really really boring. People who do it know its boring by virtue of they aren't their at their keyboards most of the time they do it! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
57
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:16:00 -
[65] - Quote
Ive seen alot of people post that they agree with this idea, however they say "CCP will never do it", I would love to at least get enough discussion going in this thread that a dev responds saying he read it, that would be ballin. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Endymion Varg
Interstellar Vermin Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:30:00 -
[66] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Ive seen alot of people post that they agree with this idea, however they say "CCP will never do it", I would love to at least get enough discussion going in this thread that a dev responds saying he read it, that would be ballin.
It almost seems like this is a feature that should have been with Eve from the beginning. |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:38:00 -
[67] - Quote
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:I'll I hear is let's isolate and separate the high sec regions making the life of a merchant even more difficult then it is. If you isolate high sec like that freighters are ganna get less used. Right now you hardly see a freighter pilot fly flew lowsec at all.
The reason people don't fly through low sec very often is because most of low sec is not on the way to any significant markets. Null sec empires are markets, but they are not open to casual traders (not blue, shoot it). So of course nobody goes there, because there's no reason to.
If and when the four major empire hubs were separated by lowsec, there would be an EXTREMELY good reason to go there with a freighter or indy ship, and people would do it all the time (carefully). |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
57
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 23:41:00 -
[68] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote: The reason people don't fly through low sec very often is because most of low sec is not on the way to any significant markets. Null sec empires are markets, but they are not open to casual traders (not blue, shoot it). So of course nobody goes there, because there's no reason to.
If and when the four major empire hubs were separated by lowsec, there would be an EXTREMELY good reason to go there with a freighter or indy ship, and people would do it all the time (carefully).
Well reason null has no trade coming is also because you can't even dock.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
57
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 05:45:00 -
[69] - Quote
Also their are some minor details that must be executed correctly for this to work. Many against my proposal cry foul because they fear that every choke point would be a rancer style hell camp. I believe that this problem exists currently in lowsec becasue if you look at the map, you will see that the side lowsec branches have usually 2-3 ways in and one straight path through the middle with some gangly systems off the side nobody cares about. Their are alot of side routes and ways to double back but these quickly remove the incentive of going to lowsec because they don't save any jumps.
Doing a quick survey with the in game map I found something interesting, their are only five high sec gates out of caldari space, three of which are right next to each other. I honestly found this surprising although I have never spent that much time studying the high sec map in detail before. Then another 23 entrances to high sec total, most being part of the same constellations. I would suggest adding 10 more along with a new route that leads to one of the new regions for every low sec constellation to adequately buffer against hell camps. Also CCP's standard randomization system for making new regions should be tweaked somewhat. Make it more interconnected so if mid route a trader finds his route blocked he can quickly reroute mid trip with only 1-3 jumps added. Possibly make it more like a spider web in design with spokes and then supports going in-between those spokes with 4-6 systems being the length of each spoke. Then tangle it all up to make it look pretty. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
This is sort of like my middle-sec idea. If 0.4 - 0.6 systems were all converted to middle-sec, then you'd have to go through middle-sec to get to other parts of highsec. All of a sudden, highsec would be contained in a few major "continents" instead of one single main region.
if you haven't heard of it before, my middle-sec idea is to make a part of space have illegal acts responded by a faction navy rather than CONCORD, making illegal attacks on players much more difficult than in lowsec yet not impossible to survive. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:27:00 -
[71] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:This is sort of like my middle-sec idea. If 0.4 - 0.6 systems were all converted to middle-sec, then you'd have to go through middle-sec to get to other parts of highsec. All of a sudden, highsec would be contained in a few major "continents" instead of one single main region.
if you haven't heard of it before, my middle-sec idea is to make a part of space have illegal acts responded by a faction navy rather than CONCORD, making illegal attacks on players much more difficult than in lowsec yet not impossible to survive. Just bring moar logi, then the only people who can camp it are those who are capable of building unbreakable hell camps or big groups of sniper nados that rapidly vanish. Setting up areas where combat is intended to occur but punishes the attacker tactically is a bad idea, just encourages being lame. All or nothing, either let me orbit the gate solo in my rifter or just prevent all pvp period. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
GizzyBoy
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:36:00 -
[72] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:Quote: until such time as that can be replicated in other trade hubs to at least the same degree, your idea would pretty much kill the game, trade would die off, and any projected increase in possible hauler kills would be just that, "projected".
Fact 1) Earth does not have one location where 95% of people go to trade everything in one building. In fact, for most of human history, you couldn't trade more than a few miles from your home without massive conglomerate enterprises which were the exception, not the rule. Fact 2) Earth's trade has not died off, nor has humanity crumbled into dust somehow due to Fact #1. Conclusion) You aren't very good at economics. edit: bonus fact) There was also very little rule of law on international roadways through most of human history, and lots of "ganking" of unescorted, unprotected tradesmen. Hence people traveled in protected caravans.
|
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
GizzyBoy wrote:forums ate my text :/ happened to me twice in this thread. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:45:00 -
[74] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:All or nothing, either let me orbit the gate solo in my rifter or just prevent all pvp period. I think that solo pvpers should be able to operate, but so should solo cargo-runners and other soloists. I think middle-sec would be a necessary step to getting a lot of highbears used to the increased danger of lowsec without thrusting them headfirst into it. And some people don't wish to deal with as much danger as you get being in lowsec, nullsec, or uncharted space. They may be willing to be active in middle-sec. It's basically just more opportunity for the individual player to choose their own risk level. And it goes without saying that the reward potential should scale with the risk.
Also, not sure if you were making a point about this or not, but small ships die much too easily to gate guns and player-owned stations. I think stargates should have a variety of turret sizes with varying DPS vs tracking. I think it should be possible to speed tank the gate sentries somewhat. A small frigate shouldn't have difficulty avoiding the large gate sentries. If it's really slick, it should avoid the medium sentries. That leaves only the small sentries hitting it and at somewhat reduced damage. Then it would be possible for it to be remotely repaired and stay in the fight. Similarly, I think that small POS turret DPS should be significantly reduced. A large POS fully armed with large turrets is unable to take out a well-tanked battleship if it has at least 2 logi focusing on it. But a large POS with small turrets will pretty much insta-pop even an assault ship, giving almost no time for logi to react. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:46:00 -
[75] - Quote
Another thing that occured to me is that moving caravans through lowsec will be difficult because it is already easy to alpha badgers and freighters in high sec, especially when you don't move very fast.
I was reading trinkets hauler rebalance thread and I think that this idea could have applications to my idea. A new class of indsutrial should be introduced with high resists but medium ehp on the whole to compliment logistics support more. In order to kill a badger you have to destroy the entire support fleet first.
Also a new addition to the freighter lineup is needed, a 200k m3 cargohold and slightly lower than battleship agility and more HP concentrated in armor and shields depending on the race to allow logistics support, it could have high slots and medium slots to support ewar and logistics and be a true battle hauler. It would have a 2au/s warp speed so that it is slow, but not so slow you can't dream of avoiding a pirate gang. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:46:00 -
[76] - Quote
GizzyBoy wrote:forums ate my text :/ All you have to do is hit the back button on your browser and it'll return you to the screen where you were typing it, with all the text still in place.
It might not do this with all browsers, and you might have to go into your internet options and find the setting that makes it store old page information. Google Chrome seems to do this by default. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:49:00 -
[77] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Commander Ted wrote:All or nothing, either let me orbit the gate solo in my rifter or just prevent all pvp period. I think that solo pvpers should be able to operate, but so should solo cargo-runners and other soloists. I think middle-sec would be a necessary step to getting a lot of highbears used to the increased danger of lowsec without thrusting them headfirst into it. And some people don't wish to deal with as much danger as you get being in lowsec, nullsec, or uncharted space. They may be willing to be active in middle-sec. It's basically just more opportunity for the individual player to choose their own risk level. And it goes without saying that the reward potential should scale with the risk. Also, not sure if you were making a point about this or not, but small ships die much too easily to gate guns and player-owned stations. I think stargates should have a variety of turret sizes with varying DPS vs tracking. I think it should be possible to speed tank the gate sentries somewhat. A small frigate shouldn't have difficulty avoiding the large gate sentries. If it's really slick, it should avoid the medium sentries. That leaves only the small sentries hitting it and at somewhat reduced damage. Then it would be possible for it to be remotely repaired and stay in the fight. Similarly, I think that small POS turret DPS should be significantly reduced. A large POS fully armed with large turrets is unable to take out a well-tanked battleship if it has at least 2 logi focusing on it. But a large POS with small turrets will pretty much insta-pop even an assault ship, giving almost no time for logi to react.
The dangers will be just as great, instead of a lone solo pvper you will find a battleship gang with Sebo'ed hics grabbing you capable of popping the faction navy without a sweat. In faction warfare I have seen a solo asb slepnir camp a gallente high sec station while instapopping the faction police and still handling the players coming from the station. Middle sec will provide false safety and very poor quality pvp. Like high sec but no war dec cost.
Also gate guns are already being nerfed, they will only fire if you pod someone after retribution hits. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:The dangers will be just as great Not if more Navy spawns for every illegal attacker. I didn't give details on my middle-sec idea, and you just assumed it wouldn't work. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:04:00 -
[79] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Commander Ted wrote:The dangers will be just as great Not if more Navy spawns for every illegal attacker. I didn't give details on my middle-sec idea, and you just assumed it wouldn't work.
They already do with my faction warfare case, even then it was one dude camping an entire station. The answer is bring more logi still and you can tank them. If every logi has stuff shooting it them the logi will be repped by the logi. Not to mention you can pop faction ships like their nothing. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
BinaryData
Kleinrock Heavy Industries Kleinrock Group
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:17:00 -
[80] - Quote
I've already argued with this idiot about his idea. He's a butt hurt bad pirate who can only blob in lowsec or insta pop frigates. He's garbage and should be ignored. |
|
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
62
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:19:00 -
[81] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:I've already argued with this idiot about his idea. He's a butt hurt bad pirate who can only blob in lowsec or insta pop frigates. He's garbage and should be ignored. You are unwilling to accept arguments from others and should not post in a forum. I have had a great deal of positive feedback already and I assure you I am not a troll. Perhaps instead of making unproductive posts you should post your ideas and concerns in a organized concise fashion and they will be responded to as such much like how I have responded to all other posters in this forum. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:23:00 -
[82] - Quote
so basically this would make low-sec relevant. I support this idea and ccp should take notice.
oh and brand new low-sec trade hubs!!! omfg |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
64
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:30:00 -
[83] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:so basically this would make low-sec relevant. I support this idea and ccp should take notice.
oh and brand new low-sec trade hubs!!! omfg
I am not sure low security space trade hubs would come of this. Being as a single system would be fairly easy to camp and if it were a hub then it would surely be profitable to camp it often. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Red Teufel wrote:so basically this would make low-sec relevant. I support this idea and ccp should take notice.
oh and brand new low-sec trade hubs!!! omfg I am not sure low security space trade hubs would come of this. Being as a single system would be fairly easy to camp and if it were a hub then it would surely be profitable to camp it often.
so anti pirate corps would become relevant as well? O_o omfg!!! |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:39:00 -
[85] - Quote
i believe if you fix the basics it snowballs and fixes everything else. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
64
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:39:00 -
[86] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:Commander Ted wrote:Red Teufel wrote:so basically this would make low-sec relevant. I support this idea and ccp should take notice.
oh and brand new low-sec trade hubs!!! omfg I am not sure low security space trade hubs would come of this. Being as a single system would be fairly easy to camp and if it were a hub then it would surely be profitable to camp it often. so anti pirate corps would become relevant as well? Yes but not for low sec trade hubs, the incentives would be far to low for non pirates. It would be pirates ganking other pirates. Imagine if all the drug dealers in one town tried to sell their drugs in one warehouse, they would shoot each other non stop. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
BinaryData
Kleinrock Heavy Industries Kleinrock Group
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:41:00 -
[87] - Quote
I accept new ideas and what not, but you're essentially FORCING people to go through lowsec to get to the other side. You're wanting to bottle neck the industrial capacity, and the moving of assets. This will only support the PvPers. You're essentially changing the game from a sandbox style, to a set play style which CCP is absolutely against.
There needs to be a balance, and as of right now, there really isn't a balance in Low-Sec. It's not as profitable as it used to be, not a lot of people go there. So, I do support the idea of changing lowsec, but what you're suggesting is preposterous, and completely left winged.
Like I said, I support changes to lowsec and nullsec. Lowsec should be slightly more profitable than high sec, and that nullsec needs to be more profitable than high/low. There needs to be a reason to FIGHT for it. |
Commander Ted
Dookie on the flowah
64
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 00:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:I accept new ideas and what not, but you're essentially FORCING people to go through lowsec to get to the other side. You're wanting to bottle neck the industrial capacity, and the moving of assets. This will only support the PvPers. You're essentially changing the game from a sandbox style, to a set play style which CCP is absolutely against.
There needs to be a balance, and as of right now, there really isn't a balance in Low-Sec. It's not as profitable as it used to be, not a lot of people go there. So, I do support the idea of changing lowsec, but what you're suggesting is preposterous, and completely left winged.
Like I said, I support changes to lowsec and nullsec. Lowsec should be slightly more profitable than high sec, and that nullsec needs to be more profitable than high/low. There needs to be a reason to FIGHT for it.
Nobody will be forced into lowsec at all. Everything you could ever need is in high sec and you will still have access to all the ores and missions you could dream. Industry production would be hardly affected since people will still be building just as much as they do now, perhaps more so because of the added production slots in lowsec. The lack of imports to your area would be compensated by the lack of exports.
The tranportation of assets was addressed beautifully by another poster in this thread. You can pay someone else to move your assets for you, in fact it would bring more buisness to the trade industry than you could dream. In economics their is something called opportunity cost, in its simplest terms this means time= money, the cost of an action is not just determined by how much you pay but what else you could be doing at that time also. Not to mention moving from area to area should be a big deal, finding a direct connecion between two high sec systems via wormhole ,moving your items through with a cloaky hauler, paying someone who does nothing but move things and is expert at it, having a good corporation with carrier or jump freighter access, or straight up liquidation would still be perfectly viable options. Also how often do you move anyway? jeez.
Low-sec is more profitable than high sec, it has better ores, exploration sites, Planetary interaction, and the ability to build capital ships. It is obvious CCP can do nothing to herd casual zombies into lowsec and I already knew when proposing this idea that such an effect would not occur. My idea would add a reason to fight for it. Trade ways must be secured and their would be people who take it upon themselves to protect commerce and have their own self interests at heart for doing so. Give the pvp'ers a reason to fight for you carebears. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 01:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Red Teufel wrote:Commander Ted wrote:Red Teufel wrote:so basically this would make low-sec relevant. I support this idea and ccp should take notice.
oh and brand new low-sec trade hubs!!! omfg I am not sure low security space trade hubs would come of this. Being as a single system would be fairly easy to camp and if it were a hub then it would surely be profitable to camp it often. so anti pirate corps would become relevant as well? Yes but not for low sec trade hubs, the incentives would be far to low for non pirates. It would be pirates ganking other pirates. Imagine if all the drug dealers in one town tried to sell their drugs in one warehouse, they would shoot each other non stop.
well i'm sure it would be something similar to popular systems used for logistical reasons by 0.0 alliances. however due to the need to sell and interact/trade between factions would arise you will get something like mini trade hubs in lowsec.
|
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 01:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:I accept new ideas and what not, but you're essentially FORCING people to go through lowsec to get to the other side. You're wanting to bottle neck the industrial capacity, and the moving of assets. This will only support the PvPers. You're essentially changing the game from a sandbox style, to a set play style which CCP is absolutely against.
There needs to be a balance, and as of right now, there really isn't a balance in Low-Sec. It's not as profitable as it used to be, not a lot of people go there. So, I do support the idea of changing lowsec, but what you're suggesting is preposterous, and completely left winged.
Like I said, I support changes to lowsec and nullsec. Lowsec should be slightly more profitable than high sec, and that nullsec needs to be more profitable than high/low. There needs to be a reason to FIGHT for it.
i would hate to burst your bubble but ccp intended you to fly through lowsec to reach the other side. the sec of a system herp a derp should odviously go down the closer it gets to a faction it is at war with... but that would make sense. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |