Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 41 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 14:46:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Tenchi Sal wrote:I'd like to see some changes in Industry to make null/low more attractive. it can be done the same way its done with super caps.
make it so frigate sized ships are the only ships that can be made in high sec.
cruiser sized need to be made in low or null sec.
battleship sized and larger can only be made in null. this includes freighter/orcas/caps.
same can apply for modules.
a system like this can force industry in all security sectors.
without a gigantic revamp to industry in nullsec, you'll be paying a heap more for t1 battleships than you are now a rogue goon |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4167
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 15:05:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Tenchi Sal wrote:I'd like to see some changes in Industry to make null/low more attractive. it can be done the same way its done with super caps.
make it so frigate sized ships are the only ships that can be made in high sec.
cruiser sized need to be made in low or null sec.
battleship sized and larger can only be made in null. this includes freighter/orcas/caps.
same can apply for modules.
a system like this can force industry in all security sectors.
I don't really like arbitrary limitations like this. I'm fine with making it less efficient to build larger ships in hi-sec, but simply saying "No you can't", not so much. Not sandboxy.
Come to that I don't see why ship sizes should be stratified in this way. There's nothing inherently hi-seccy about frigate size ships, or 0.0y about battleships.
I'd rather see general manufacturing (and invention and research) efficiency stratified as Sov 0.0 = W-space > NPC 0.0 > Lo-sec > 0.5 > 0.6 > 0.7 > 0.8 > 0.9 > 1.0
If someone wants to build battleships in a 1.0 then they should be able to. But if someone wants to build battleships in deep W-space or in a player built outpost, then they should get substantial advantages over the guy in 1.0
EDIT: And as said above, and repeatedly in this thread, there needs to be a truly gigantic improvement in the capacity of outpost/POS facilities before any other major changes are considered. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Lord Zim
950
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 15:52:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:(Also, extremely likely outcome of plan like this: people involved in the PLEX market figure it out all the way to the fine details; shitstorm.) It looks like 2000 or more plexes are traded every day in Jita, a subtle hand could easily be able to extract a fair bit of isk without anyone knowing or realizing. |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
131
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 16:06:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:If the desired outcome is preventing players from using NPC corps as a means to escape a war dec - this change will not have the desired effect. Players in High Sec, despite often being ignorant of many things, are extremely smart. If their corporation gets war dec'd into a fight they are not interested in fighting they already have holding corps set up to avoid the war dec. If they are so inclined to not fight a war - they will not undock and will just play Skill Queue Online until the war is over. How do you avoid a sanction when it is directly at the player themselves? Also like I mentioned, it would be good to have a cap where they are not in a complete lockout of doing things if they are willing to fly small ships that do not break the sanction against them. So you could levy sanctions against a single player, no matter if they are in a player corp or NPC corp and there could be an option to levy sanctions against entire player corps or alliances. |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
164
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:07:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:If the desired outcome is preventing players from using NPC corps as a means to escape a war dec - this change will not have the desired effect. Players in High Sec, despite often being ignorant of many things, are extremely smart. If their corporation gets war dec'd into a fight they are not interested in fighting they already have holding corps set up to avoid the war dec. If they are so inclined to not fight a war - they will not undock and will just play Skill Queue Online until the war is over. How do you avoid a sanction when it is directly at the player themselves? Also like I mentioned, it would be good to have a cap where they are not in a complete lockout of doing things if they are willing to fly small ships that do not break the sanction against them. So you could levy sanctions against a single player, no matter if they are in a player corp or NPC corp and there could be an option to levy sanctions against entire player corps or alliances.
I am not sure that having the ability to single out a player for a war dec makes sense. Corp V. Corp? Aliiance vs. Alliance? Those make sense. But Corp vs. Single Player? Alliance vs. Single Player? Not so much.
-á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:18:00 -
[1146] - Quote
I feel vibrations coming from Delve... and I have a feeling its even gona get better!! |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
131
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:27:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:If the desired outcome is preventing players from using NPC corps as a means to escape a war dec - this change will not have the desired effect. Players in High Sec, despite often being ignorant of many things, are extremely smart. If their corporation gets war dec'd into a fight they are not interested in fighting they already have holding corps set up to avoid the war dec. If they are so inclined to not fight a war - they will not undock and will just play Skill Queue Online until the war is over. How do you avoid a sanction when it is directly at the player themselves? Also like I mentioned, it would be good to have a cap where they are not in a complete lockout of doing things if they are willing to fly small ships that do not break the sanction against them. So you could levy sanctions against a single player, no matter if they are in a player corp or NPC corp and there could be an option to levy sanctions against entire player corps or alliances. I am not sure that having the ability to single out a player for a war dec makes sense. Corp V. Corp? Aliiance vs. Alliance? Those make sense. But Corp vs. Single Player? Alliance vs. Single Player? Not so much. Cold harsh universe? Seriously I don't see a huge problem with it. Could you elaborate more on why it does not make sense please. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
508
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 18:48:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Cold harsh universe? Seriously I don't see a huge problem with it. Could you elaborate more on why it does not make sense please. too easy to grief someone (even by CCP's "loose" standard of what that means). Individual players shouldn't be able to be singled out - target their corp.
IMHO.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Adelphie
Paradox Collective Choke Point
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:55:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Cold harsh universe? Seriously I don't see a huge problem with it. Could you elaborate more on why it does not make sense please. too easy to grief someone (even by CCP's "loose" standard of what that means). Individual players shouldn't be able to be singled out - target their corp. IMHO.
I've +1'd this post plainly for the fact I was starting to rage at the misspelling of "lose", then realised you actually did mean loose!
A rare occurrence. |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
164
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 22:22:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:I am not sure that having the ability to single out a player for a war dec makes sense. Corp V. Corp? Aliiance vs. Alliance? Those make sense. But Corp vs. Single Player? Alliance vs. Single Player? Not so much.
Cold harsh universe? Seriously I don't see a huge problem with it. Could you elaborate more on why it does not make sense please.
Asuri beat me to it.
Asuri Kinnes wrote:too easy to grief someone (even by CCP's "loose" standard of what that means). Individual players shouldn't be able to be singled out - target their corp.
IMHO.
I think it folly to require a single individual to defend against 9000 (in the case of the largest alliance). It sets a dangerous precedent. If this was deployed in the live environment, again, a risk adverse individual who is willing to pay 11% tax to remain invulnerable to a wardec is not suddenly going to strap guns to his ship to fight off a rival corp or alliance. He will simply stay in station playing Skill Queue Online until the war is over or he will just quit. This is not the desired effect and again does not address the root issue.
Additionally, if you want to blow up a single individual the mechanics to do so already exist in game. You and your friends can all fit gank nados and take him out wherever he might be. Asking to be able to wardec a single individual so you can shoot them with impunity and without a CONCORD response reeks of, "I want easy, risk free kills in high sec".
I do appreciate you voicing your opinion and for keeping it constructive. I just can't get behind it as you and Nicolo have it stated. I also hope that this has helped to clarify my previous statement.
Kimmi Chan wrote: I am not sure that having the ability to single out a player for a war dec makes sense. Corp V. Corp? Aliiance vs. Alliance? Those make sense. But Corp vs. Single Player? Alliance vs. Single Player? Not so much.
-á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
|
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:17:00 -
[1151] - Quote
I did say a cap on how severe the sanction could go. So your scenerio of them being forced to stay docked is not really a concern. Does this clarify it some? Also if 9000 man alliance is ok to full blown war dec a 50 man corp, how is a sanction against one individual from flying battleships worse?? |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:28:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:I did say a cap on how severe the sanction could go. So your scenerio of them being forced to stay docked is not really a concern. Does this clarify it some? Also if 9000 man alliance is ok to full blown war dec a 50 man corp, how is a sanction against one individual from flying battleships worse??
So if I understand this concept of "Sanctions" your desire is to spend ISK to dictate to another player what ship types they can and cannot fly thereby depriving them of choices? And before you say, "No, they have choices. There are just consequences for their choices", those consequences already exist in game.
In this game a miner, as an example, regardless of whether he is in an NPC Corporation or not makes a choice to undock a Hulk (tank or untanked doesn't make a difference). There are possible consequences and ramifications of doing so. Perhaps you are the consequence as you gank him in his favorite belt and then promptly get CONCORDed.
In your scenario, you would "sanction" this guy and limit his choices. This equates to you saying, "I don't think you should be allowed to undock a Hulk and if you do, I will kill you." My response to that is, "What gives you the ******* right to tell me what my choices are?"
While it may not be an accurate assessment I can tell you what the perception is: you want to kill people in High Sec without being CONCORDed and that really is it. Unless you can find a better way to do this I don't see this getting much traction and it still fails to address the topic of this thread. How do we improve the living conditions in Null Sec so it's residents can actually live there?
-á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1129
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:31:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Cold harsh universe? Seriously I don't see a huge problem with it. Could you elaborate more on why it does not make sense please. too easy to grief someone (even by CCP's "loose" standard of what that means). Individual players shouldn't be able to be singled out - target their corp. IMHO. Yep, their NPC corp, of course. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:11:00 -
[1154] - Quote
It was just an idea. I view it like a diet version of war decing a one man player corp, but I seem to have failed in painting the picture for you. The idea did stem off of addressing freighter alts performing logistics with impunity without obliterating NPC corps completely. |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:21:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:It was just an idea. I view it like a diet version of war decing a one man player corp, but I seem to have failed in painting the picture for you. The idea did stem off of addressing freighter alts performing logistics with impunity without obliterating NPC corps completely.
OK! This I can get into. I think we might be able to find some common ground here. This also relates to a post or two that I made further back. I may be mistaken on these points and if I am I apologize and would appreciated being corrected.
I am working under the following assumptions: Null-Sec freighers and Jump Freighters jump to a low sec staging system that might be only one gate deep into low sec. From there, they warp to 0 to the gate that leads them right into high sec and relative safety (no one is 100% safe).
I in no way want to limit or eliminate jump drive, jump bridge mechanics in NULL sec. What I would like to see is that those mechanics only work when moving assets FROM null sec TO null sec. If you need to take goods to a high sec market hub you have to go through every low sec system on that route.
Before ANY of this can be done or evaluated for its merits, industry in Null must be unf***ed. To essentially require Null Sec residents to take on the additional risks of travel through lowsec there must be an option to keep their holdings in their domain - that environment does not exist.
Once the industry has been corrected there may be a need to outsource to highsec, a convoy with escort is organized, and a bloodbath ensues. Emergent content in lowsec of all places.
If an NPC Corp member is flying his JF full of toys through lowsec there is no need to wardec, no need to worry about rookie status, no need to sanction - just ******* shoot the son of a ***** and profit. \o/ -á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
509
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 01:57:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:I've +1'd this post plainly for the fact I was starting to rage at the misspelling of "lose", then realised you actually did mean loose!
A rare occurrence. You've made me smile tonight.
TY.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 01:58:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:It was just an idea. I view it like a diet version of war decing a one man player corp, but I seem to have failed in painting the picture for you. The idea did stem off of addressing freighter alts performing logistics with impunity without obliterating NPC corps completely. OK! This I can get into. I think we might be able to find some common ground here. This also relates to a post or two that I made further back. I may be mistaken on these points and if I am I apologize and would appreciated being corrected. I am working under the following assumptions: Null-Sec freighers and Jump Freighters jump to a low sec staging system that might be only one gate deep into low sec. From there, they warp to 0 to the gate that leads them right into high sec and relative safety (no one is 100% safe). I in no way want to limit or eliminate jump drive, jump bridge mechanics in NULL sec. What I would like to see is that those mechanics only work when moving assets FROM null sec TO null sec. If you need to take goods to a high sec market hub you have to go through every low sec system on that route. Before ANY of this can be done or evaluated for its merits, industry in Null must be unf***ed. To essentially require Null Sec residents to take on the additional risks of travel through lowsec there must be an option to keep their holdings in their domain - that environment does not exist. Once the industry has been corrected there may be a need to outsource to highsec, a convoy with escort is organized, and a bloodbath ensues. Emergent content in lowsec of all places. If an NPC Corp member is flying his JF full of toys through lowsec there is no need to wardec, no need to worry about rookie status, no need to sanction - just ******* shoot the son of a ***** and profit. \o/
Could you give an example please. |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
169
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:23:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Could you give an example please.
I will try.
Remember I am ignorant of Null Sec politics and power blocs - bear in mind as you read.
A Null Sec alliance in 6NJ8-V (0.0) does not have enough slots to efficiently refine their ABC so they decide to outsource the work to a high sec station in Saisio. They use a jump freighter/bridge to move the ore quickly to M-OEE8 (0.0) and warp to 0 on the gate to Taisy (0.3). They jump a scout into Taisy and the gate appears to be clear. Local and D-Scan only show one other person in system. Freighter is given the go ahead to jump into Taisy and warp to 0 on the gate to Nalvula (0.4). Again, scout goes through and sees a large group of negative sec status pirates sitting on the gate.
Alliance has the choice of jumping through a combat fleet to clear a path for the freighter or finding an alternate route. If the freighter and its escort fleet emerge victorious, the fleet then warps to 0 on the Vuorrassi (0.5) gate and jumps in and then finishes their run to Saisio to refine the ABC there. Then has to make the trip back with the refined goods and essentially run the gauntlet again.
Thus creating small gang PvP in lowsec and more pew pew for null sec PvP enthusiasts that may want to do something other than 1000+ member fleet battles just as a change of pace.
Bear in mind, none of this can be deployed successfully unless the industry in Null is improved. Otherwise, Null Sec alliances would have to take EVERYTHING through lowsec and they have enough risk as it is just living in Null (or at least they should considering the intent of design). It should be more efficient to do this stuff in Null but not enough to completely eliminate the occasional desire to take the stuff to High Sec to improve efficiency.
This is just a rough idea and obviously not a finished product but at least a baseline for discussion.
Does this make the idea clearer? What are your thoughts? What from your experience could be changed here to make it better or more vibrant?
-á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 03:27:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Could you give an example please. I will try. Remember I am ignorant of Null Sec politics and power blocs - bear in mind as you read. A Null Sec alliance in 6NJ8-V (0.0) does not have enough slots to efficiently refine their ABC so they decide to outsource the work to a high sec station in Saisio. They use a jump freighter/bridge to move the ore quickly to M-OEE8 (0.0) and warp to 0 on the gate to Taisy (0.3). They jump a scout into Taisy and the gate appears to be clear. Local and D-Scan only show one other person in system. Freighter is given the go ahead to jump into Taisy and warp to 0 on the gate to Nalvula (0.4). Again, scout goes through and sees a large group of negative sec status pirates sitting on the gate. Alliance has the choice of jumping through a combat fleet to clear a path for the freighter or finding an alternate route. If the freighter and its escort fleet emerge victorious, the fleet then warps to 0 on the Vuorrassi (0.5) gate and jumps in and then finishes their run to Saisio to refine the ABC there. Then has to make the trip back with the refined goods and essentially run the gauntlet again. Thus creating small gang PvP in lowsec and more pew pew for null sec PvP enthusiasts that may want to do something other than 1000+ member fleet battles just as a change of pace. Bear in mind, none of this can be deployed successfully unless the industry in Null is improved. Otherwise, Null Sec alliances would have to take EVERYTHING through lowsec and they have enough risk as it is just living in Null (or at least they should considering the intent of design). It should be more efficient to do this stuff in Null but not enough to completely eliminate the occasional desire to take the stuff to High Sec to improve efficiency. This is just a rough idea and obviously not a finished product but at least a baseline for discussion. Does this make the idea clearer? What are your thoughts? What from your experience could be changed here to make it better or more vibrant? Unless you are barring all cynos in low sec, the work around would be carriers, like before the jump freighters showed up in the game. Also titans could bridge freighters directly to the last low sec, thus avoiding the 'escort' part. Then a step further would be trading the goods to a NPC alt for further risk aversion. End result would be the same untouchable freighters transporting mass goods to and from Jita.
I'm not a big fan of being the one to shoot holes in an idea, had it done to me too many times. Apologies, but what I wrote make sense? |
Mascen Carew
Ordo Carnifex
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 04:08:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Really need to make low sec healthy before looking at Null, while both Hi and Null sec have proGÇÖs and cons there is at least a synergy between them. Low seems to be pretty much an underutilised no mans land at present, any solution for the cons in Null and Hi perceived or otherwise must as a matter of course take into consideration the current state of low. Low has probably the highest risk factor and most difficult to access rewards, the population in Null talk about nerfing Hi and visa versa, Nul wantGÇÖs HiGÇÖs infrastructure Hi would like NulGÇÖs mineral wealth, both consider themselves hard done by. Hi is civilisation, Null is Wilderness, perhaps Low should be the Boom area, Semi Lawless Frontier in between, my suggestion would be to leave the majority of Null and Hi as they currently stand but move the main Trading Hubs and the wealth into low. Just a thought, it would certainly make life a lot more interesting.
Thinking about it, moving the trade centres to low would also open up interesting lines of work for MercGÇÖs hiring out as escorts or guards in local systems , and for logistics organisations hauling freight.
"Life wasn't meant to be easy" |
|
Anhenka
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 05:33:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Mascen Carew wrote:Really need to make low sec healthy before looking at Null, while both Hi and Null sec have proGÇÖs and cons there is at least a synergy between them. Low seems to be pretty much an under utilised no mans land at present, any solution for the cons in Null and Hi perceived or otherwise must as a matter of course take into consideration the current state of low. Low has probably the highest risk factor and most difficult to access rewards, the population in Null talk about nerfing Hi and visa versa, Nul wantGÇÖs HiGÇÖs infrastructure Hi would like NulGÇÖs mineral wealth, both consider themselves hard done by. Hi is civilisation, Null is Wilderness, perhaps Low should be the Boom area, Semi Lawless Frontier in between, my suggestion would be to leave the majority of Null and Hi as they currently stand but move the main Trading Hubs and the wealth into low . Just a thought, it would certainly make life a lot more interesting. Thinking about it, moving the trade centres to low would also open up interesting lines of work for MercGÇÖs hiring out as escorts or guards in local systems , and for logistics organisations hauling freight. "Life wasn't meant to be easy"
And how would you try and do that?
You say "hey lets add a 30% tax on all things sold in highsec!" "That will drive them to a lowsec hub!"
You know whats happens? Things become 30% more expensive, and Jita stays Jita.
What sort of mechanic could induce people to move an active highsec tradehub to lowsec? |
Mascen Carew
Ordo Carnifex
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 05:40:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Mascen Carew wrote:Really need to make low sec healthy before looking at Null, while both Hi and Null sec have proGÇÖs and cons there is at least a synergy between them. Low seems to be pretty much an under utilised no mans land at present, any solution for the cons in Null and Hi perceived or otherwise must as a matter of course take into consideration the current state of low. Low has probably the highest risk factor and most difficult to access rewards, the population in Null talk about nerfing Hi and visa versa, Nul wantGÇÖs HiGÇÖs infrastructure Hi would like NulGÇÖs mineral wealth, both consider themselves hard done by. Hi is civilisation, Null is Wilderness, perhaps Low should be the Boom area, Semi Lawless Frontier in between, my suggestion would be to leave the majority of Null and Hi as they currently stand but move the main Trading Hubs and the wealth into low . Just a thought, it would certainly make life a lot more interesting. Thinking about it, moving the trade centres to low would also open up interesting lines of work for MercGÇÖs hiring out as escorts or guards in local systems , and for logistics organisations hauling freight. "Life wasn't meant to be easy" And how would you try and do that? You say "hey lets add a 30% tax on all things sold in highsec!" "That will drive them to a lowsec hub!" You know whats happens? Things become 30% more expensive, and Jita stays Jita. What sort of mechanic could induce people to move an active highsec tradehub to lowsec?
Access, Jita wasn't the first Super Hub, look up the Yulai system. CCP nerfed it, Jita and the other hubs need not go just be downgraded a tad, they are only the way they are while CCP allows them to be. |
Anhenka
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:03:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Mascen Carew wrote:Anhenka wrote:
And how would you try and do that?
You say "hey lets add a 30% tax on all things sold in highsec!" "That will drive them to a lowsec hub!"
You know whats happens? Things become 30% more expensive, and Jita stays Jita.
What sort of mechanic could induce people to move an active highsec tradehub to lowsec?
Access, Jita wasn't the first Super Hub, look up the Yulai system. CCP nerfed it, Jita and the other hubs need not go just be downgraded a tad, they are only the way they are while CCP allows them to be.
There's a difference between changing access levels within highsec to prevent a single superhub for the entire universe and somehow changing access so that a hub naturally moves into lowsec of all places.
As long as there is a continuous highsec, the trade hubs will be located there. and people propositions to add lowsec belts between empires opens up a whole nother can of nasty worms, but even with that, the hubs would be in highsec, just more isolated from each other. |
Tobias Durandal
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:09:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Out of laziness (also ego) I'm skipping 50+ pages.
Five years ago, nullsec was mostly dead as could be. Less you happened to be on during the time that a given alliance roamed around. I'd regularly make trips from Syndicate to Curse without a single bump along the way. |
Mascen Carew
Ordo Carnifex
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:18:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Mascen Carew wrote:Anhenka wrote:
And how would you try and do that?
You say "hey lets add a 30% tax on all things sold in highsec!" "That will drive them to a lowsec hub!"
You know whats happens? Things become 30% more expensive, and Jita stays Jita.
What sort of mechanic could induce people to move an active highsec tradehub to lowsec?
Access, Jita wasn't the first Super Hub, look up the Yulai system. CCP nerfed it, Jita and the other hubs need not go just be downgraded a tad, they are only the way they are while CCP allows them to be. There's a difference between changing access levels within highsec to prevent a single superhub for the entire universe and somehow changing access so that a hub naturally moves into lowsec of all places. As long as there is a continuous highsec, the trade hubs will be located there. and people propositions to add lowsec belts between empires opens up a whole nother can of nasty worms, but even with that, the hubs would be in highsec, just more isolated from each other.
My question to that is, why should they be? I've just put forward a thought, a glimmer of an idea based on human development and the expansion/migration of humanity. It would indeed open a can of worms, but I think it would be an interesting can of worms,reduce the manufacturing costs in low, the best prices/returns could be in low, people could still sell or manufacture in Hi with out restrictions but they would not get the same value for their goods, similarly they could buy in Hi Sec but at increased cost
"Life wasn't meant to be easy"
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1637
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:29:00 -
[1166] - Quote
My memory is not good, because I drink a lot, but did I come in here before and make any mention of how removing dependency on gates and letting ships warp around like in Star Trek would really stir things up?
|
Goremageddon Box
Guerrilla Flotilla
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:39:00 -
[1167] - Quote
can we just throw some fluorescent pink in low sec and call it "vibrant" ? |
James Arget
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 06:44:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Small groups of dedicated players who were formerly drawn to nullsec for the idea of being able to fight as a group, claim space, hold it, and make it pay for their PVP, are now going to w-space instead.
Why? W-space means putting up your tent on an island. Nullsec means putting up a tent on a football field. Sure, it's empty most of the time, but they don't usually give the the game schedule either. |
Kimmi Chan
Illuminatus Reforged The Revenant Order
173
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 09:46:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Could you give an example please. I will try. Remember I am ignorant of Null Sec politics and power blocs - bear in mind as you read. A Null Sec alliance in 6NJ8-V (0.0) does not have enough slots to efficiently refine their ABC so they decide to outsource the work to a high sec station in Saisio. They use a jump freighter/bridge to move the ore quickly to M-OEE8 (0.0) and warp to 0 on the gate to Taisy (0.3). They jump a scout into Taisy and the gate appears to be clear. Local and D-Scan only show one other person in system. Freighter is given the go ahead to jump into Taisy and warp to 0 on the gate to Nalvula (0.4). Again, scout goes through and sees a large group of negative sec status pirates sitting on the gate. Alliance has the choice of jumping through a combat fleet to clear a path for the freighter or finding an alternate route. If the freighter and its escort fleet emerge victorious, the fleet then warps to 0 on the Vuorrassi (0.5) gate and jumps in and then finishes their run to Saisio to refine the ABC there. Then has to make the trip back with the refined goods and essentially run the gauntlet again. Thus creating small gang PvP in lowsec and more pew pew for null sec PvP enthusiasts that may want to do something other than 1000+ member fleet battles just as a change of pace. Bear in mind, none of this can be deployed successfully unless the industry in Null is improved. Otherwise, Null Sec alliances would have to take EVERYTHING through lowsec and they have enough risk as it is just living in Null (or at least they should considering the intent of design). It should be more efficient to do this stuff in Null but not enough to completely eliminate the occasional desire to take the stuff to High Sec to improve efficiency. This is just a rough idea and obviously not a finished product but at least a baseline for discussion. Does this make the idea clearer? What are your thoughts? What from your experience could be changed here to make it better or more vibrant? Unless you are barring all cynos in low sec, the work around would be carriers, like before the jump freighters showed up in the game. Also titans could bridge freighters directly to the last low sec, thus avoiding the 'escort' part. Then a step further would be trading the goods to a NPC alt for further risk aversion. End result would be the same untouchable freighters transporting mass goods to and from Jita. I'm not a big fan of being the one to shoot holes in an idea, had it done to me too many times. Apologies, but what I wrote make sense?
No apologies needed. I get it. There is no panacea to address this problem. I think the discussion, at least when it is constructive and realistic, is helpful.
It seems, based on your response, that the current mechanics are the deterrent for this kind of example. What mechanics would need to be changed to make this kind of occurrence viable AND fun for both sides? What would be the downside of changing those mechanics?
-á"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Better Than You
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 15:50:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:I still don't understand how giving null manufacturing slots and whatever for industry is going to pop the Jita nipple out of null's mouth. Yes, of course, they still need to be done, but I am just curious what the 'big' change will be? Jita is by far, the one stop shopping hot spot for all your needs. With current projection mechanics (being able to transverse the galaxy in minutes), why would anyone stop going to Jita? It is one huge hole in the ground that all the water flows to. There needs to be far more changes and some even huge, to fill that hole up to allow the opportunity for many different oasis markets to form across the galaxy.
Suggestions/ideas? Remove NPC corps, make people wardeccable as individuals. Add a spool up timer to activating a cyno and highsec wardec corps can start cargo scanning freighters and immediately start deccing the unescorted supply convoys. I am curious about what I bolded. Pulling that off would be a major game changer, to a degree in my opinion. CCP said, I promise they did but I can't find the blue post, that they like NPC corp chat channels due to how helpful they are for new players. Yes, I know some have said in this very thread they detest the NPC corp chat because of all the noob like questions and stuff, but why should all those new players be punished because some bitter vet spent a couple days in one recently? War decing individuals (I am assuming you are referring to players even if they are in NPC corps) sounds very interesting. If removing NPC corps turns out to be completely impossible, what if there was some sort of hybrid war dec available? Like sanctions. Someone said earlier to make it where NPC corps can not board capital ships, which I found interesting. There is indeed several spaceship command skill books that can not be trained on trial accounts. Now assuming (saying this a lot, but I give zero fucks) the other parts of null are addressed properly; what if you could levy a sanction on a specific player. First level would be capital ships. The cheapest sanction to do and if the player is caught in that class ship or larger, Concord turns a blind eye and they are fair game to be blown up by those who issued the sanction. Next level would be battleships and larger, etc, etc... you get the idea. Each level becoming more and more expensive to sanction. Now I don't want to get into pricing and balance or any of that, but the idea is there. I do however think there should be a limit on how far you can go, like you can't put sanctions against anything smaller than a battlecruiser. That way you don't make it impossible for the player to actually play the game if they choose to remain in high sec and lead to simply quitting the game. It is kind of hard to run those level four missions solo in a cruiser or move freighter loads of goods with a lone hauler. Meh, just another shoot from the hip idea from a high sec pubbie who actually doesn't live in high sec who will most likely have their post torn apart by trolls who can't read past the author of the post without their head exploding with unfocused rage. Nicolo, I think your heart is in the right place, even if I disagree with what method to use to reach the 'goal', which is a much more exciting and vibrant internet spaceships game.
so you want to be able to decide what i can and can not fly with the press of a button and a few isk?! how is that even remotely balanced in your brain?
if i want to solo a lvl 4 mission then by god i should be allowed to solo that lvl 4 mission. you may not like people using the autopilot feature, but by telling people they cant fly haulers removes this feature practically. good job on taking sand out of the sandbox! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 41 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |