| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
   |
Posted - 2010.07.13 05:54:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Aurum Bellator
In my opinion, it is time to take the final step and remove the highsec highways that connect empires to empires. Each empire should be bordered with only lowsec systems, so that in order to travel between empires, you have to travel through borderzones rife with piracy and warfare.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. Four empires supposedly at peace with each other would make damned sure routes were clear and safe.
Quote:
With this change, you could add four new currencies unique to each empire each with a fluctuating exchange rate with the isk.
You don't need any change to make a pitch for different currencies. Trouble is, if it did happen, you'd have every wannabe forex trader screwing things up in classic Eve fashion. Anyway, ain't gonna happen. Too messy. Not needed at all.
Quote:
The benefit? For one, it would allow the possibility of lucrative and specialized trade routes. Tweak drop rates in different areas and you will have vast price differences, with people unable to connect them with autopilot in a freighter. Think of the trade possibilities that would erupt by simply altering the spawn rate of certain asteroids in the four empires.
And there's the nub. You want to buff what is already the most most lucrative career in the game. Ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
Two, it will spread the population out from the central network that connects the major hubs.
Jita is the trade capital. Caldari is the most popular race. Your proposals would not change that one whit.
Quote:
Finally, doing this would at last create the unique 'flavor' of each empire/race.
This is the least RP conscious game I've yet to see, and traders are the least interested in RP. Besides, nothing you proposed would do anything towards creating racial flavours.
Quote:
It would also create far more opportunity for lowsec gameplay, and by that I don't just mean ganking and pirating although certainly there would be that as well.
Lowsec is a wasteland. It needs something radical, not tinkering with tarmac.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 07:50:00 -
[2]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Varo Jan
Lowsec is a wasteland.
Agreed. And I believe I know why: it's too predictable. "WHAT?!!" you exclaim. Hear me out.
Overall, make Concord's security status effects more of a continuum instead of the dichotomy they are now.
I agree. It is totally predictable. What you propose would make it a bit more of a lottery for both sides, which is good. But I seriously doubt it would have a radical impact on lowsec population.
So here's an alternative - do away with low sec totally. Move some to high sec and some to null sec, and have done with it.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 19:41:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia
Lowsec serves a valuable purpose.
Really? What purpose is that? Which major section of the EVE population benefits from low sec?
Quote:
If you have balls and brains you can safely navigate through lowsec space and therefore profit.
You need neither balls nor brains. You need a frigate or a BR. Singing "U Can't Touch This" is optional.
Anyone with a modi****of sense knows not to take a floating brick through Hagilur when the weekend weenies are out.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 20:20:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
@Varo: Well I just plain disagree with your viewpoint.
Of course you do. :) Consider this. Caldari and Amarr are allies. Minmatar and Gallente are allies. Each faction has more than one region. It makes zero sense to have low sec borders between regions belonging to the same faction; and low sec borders between either Amarr and Caldari or Minmatar and Gallente. If you really want to play the RP card, think it through.
Quote:
As far as the multiple racial currencies piece, that was not the focal point of my suggestion and was more of a throw-away off the cuff suggestion.
A major change warrants more analysis and thought than an off the cuff suggestion. Ditch it. It doesn't belong here.
Quote:
As far as your comment about 'buffing' the most lucrative career in Eve; if you are talking about 'trade' you are painting with too broad of a brush.
Yes I am painting a broad brush. That's all that's needed right now. Buff mining before you even start to think about buffing trading or pirating.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:37:00 -
[5]
I do not support this at all.
It would buff the most lucrative profession in EVE - trading. There's no call for that.
As far as low sec is concerned, tinkering with the tarmac is pointless. The whole concept needs a radical overhaul, and this isn't it.
It makes zero sense from a role play angle when you consider carefully the social context.
Originally by: Fumitsugu Sylwia
Lowsec is an extremely viable casual PvP environment that faction warfare and pirates benefit from. Explorers go there. POS are set up there due to their proximity to Empire. It is a good place for people to experience a life outside highsec without the drag of bubbles (pun intended) which poses a tougher challenge. I could go on, but it is safe to say a large portion of Eve players live there.
You make some valid points. However, I disagree with your claim that a large portion of EVE players live there. No, I haven't taken a census; have you? But all the whines about low sec being empty/unprofitable don't support your claim.
Quote:
If you believe you are perfectly safe going through lowsec in a BR or frig you are mistaken. It's just safer. I'd say Covops frigs are 99% untouchable, however.
Nowhere is totally safe, not even high sec. But you have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly unlucky to get ganked passing through.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 02:54:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
I can point to real world examples, to the extent they are relevant, to support my position.
Mexico.
The "Wild West."
RL examples rarely help as we're talking about a game set far, far, far into the future. However, US comparisons are not appropriate at all as you're talking about a land-locked country - and most trade historically has been by water.
Countries like England, Spain and the Netherlands went to great pains to protect their trade routes. Stands to reason that empires that far into the future would do the same.
It is nonsense to think that low sec areas would abound along trade routes. So, yeah, this proposal makes no sense from an RP point of view.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.14 15:17:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Cain m
Erm, what the hell are you on? Only two countries (Paraguay & Bolivia in South America) in the western hemisphere are landlocked, plus Mali and Burkina Faso if you want to count them.
Yeah, bad choice of words. The fact remains that the US does not provide appropriate comparisons for trade routes.
And there are 44 land locked countries in the world - they all count even if 42 aren't part of the Americas.
|
| |
|